Heilweil v. Heilweil, No. Fa83 0212429 (Jan. 30, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Heilweil v. Heilweil, No. Fa83 0212429 (Jan. 30, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1992

DocketNo. FA83 0212429

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6 (Heilweil v. Heilweil, No. Fa83 0212429 (Jan. 30, 1992)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heilweil v. Heilweil, No. Fa83 0212429 (Jan. 30, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DETERMINE ARREARAGE (NO. 157.00) DATED AUGUST 2, 1990 Neither side has presented persuasive relevant case authority on the issue. In the motion to determine arrearage it is alleged that on July 18, 1990, Judge Cocco, acting sua sponte, vacated his orders and judgment of February 28, 1990 and recused himself from further hearing of or participation in this matter. Having heard no contrary testimony, if that was the situation, then it is clear that the order is as though it never spoke. Accordingly, any credit that the husband took is ordered to be paid.

There is an allegation that the husband is arrears $1,000.00. The court finds that the $1,000.00 arrearage is appropriate and he is ordered to pay that forthwith.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR., JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DETERMINE ARREARAGE (NO. 157.00) DATED AUGUST 2, 1990 Neither side has presented persuasive relevant case authority on the issue. In the motion to determine arrearage it is alleged that on July 18, 1990, Judge Cocco, acting sua sponte, vacated his orders and judgment of February 28, 1990 and recused himself from further hearing of or participation in this matter. Having heard no contrary testimony, if that was the situation, then it is clear that the order is as though it never spoke. Accordingly, any credit that the husband took is ordered to be paid.

There is an allegation that the husband is arrears $1,000.00. The court finds that the $1,000.00 arrearage is appropriate and he is ordered to pay that forthwith.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR., JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heilweil-v-heilweil-no-fa83-0212429-jan-30-1992-connsuperct-1992.