Keller v. Keller

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Keller v. Keller

147 A.3d 146, 323 Conn. 398, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 288

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided October 25, 2016·No. SC19537·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the course of this protracted marital dissolution action between the plaintiff, Beth Keller, and the defendant, Richard Keller, the trial court entered an order of contempt against the plaintiff on the ground that she had failed to provide the defendant with her new address after she moved to another residence with the parties' three minor children, in violation of the automatic orders under Practice Book § 25-5 (a) (2) 1 and a court order containing the parties' parenting agreement. The plaintiff appealed from the contempt order to the Appellate Court, claiming that neither authority literally applied to the facts of the present case. Keller v. Keller , 158 Conn.App. 538 , 547, 119 A.3d 1213 (2015). Specifically, the plaintiff contended that: (1) § 25-5 (a) (2) was inapplicable because its notice requirement is limited to a move from the marital home, not subsequent changes of residence; and (2) the defendant's actual knowledge of the location of her current residence satisfied the notice requirements of the court order. Id., 546-47, 119 A.3d 1213 . Following the Appellate Court's judgment affirming the contempt order; id.; the plaintiff appealed to this court upon our grant of certification. Keller v. Keller , 319 Conn. 906 , 122 A.3d 638 (2015).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

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

PER CURIAM.

In the course of this protracted marital dissolution action between the plaintiff, Beth Keller, and the defendant, Richard Keller, the trial court entered an order of contempt against the plaintiff on the ground that she had failed to provide the defendant with her new address after she moved to another residence with the parties' three minor children, in violation of the automatic orders under Practice Book § 25-5 (a) (2) 1 and a court order containing the parties' parenting agreement. The plaintiff appealed from the contempt order to the Appellate Court, claiming that neither authority literally applied to the facts of the present case. Keller v. Keller , 158 Conn.App. 538 , 547, 119 A.3d 1213 (2015). Specifically, the plaintiff contended that: (1) § 25-5 (a) (2) was inapplicable because its notice requirement is limited to a move from the marital home, not subsequent changes of residence; and (2) the defendant's actual knowledge of the location of her current residence satisfied the notice requirements of the court order. Id., 546-47, 119 A.3d 1213 . Following the Appellate Court's judgment affirming the contempt order; id.; the plaintiff appealed to this court upon our grant of certification. Keller v. Keller , 319 Conn. 906 , 122 A.3d 638 (2015).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

Keller v. Keller, 147 A.3d 146, 323 Conn. 398, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 288 (Colo. 2016).

Pincite

147 A.3d 146 (Keller v. Keller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related