Kiniry v. Kiniry, No. Fa 98 0163981 S (Apr. 10, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Kiniry v. Kiniry, No. Fa 98 0163981 S (Apr. 10, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4863

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 10, 2002

DocketNo. FA 98 0163981 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4863 (Kiniry v. Kiniry, No. Fa 98 0163981 S (Apr. 10, 2002)) 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

Kiniry v. Kiniry, No. Fa 98 0163981 S (Apr. 10, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4863 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff cites McGuinness v. McGuinness, 185 Conn. 7 (19) for its statement that,

"In a modification action, the court should consider the same factor as it would in rendering an original award", citing Noce v. Noce, supra, 181 Conn. 145 at CT Page 4864 150, and Cummock v. Cummock, 180 Conn. 218, 222

The final judgment's orders have been described as a `mosaics' of division of assets, assignment of debts and periodic orders. A post judgment modification of alimony does not implicate a re-examination of the asset and liability division.

This court finds that the later case of Borkowski v. Borkowski,228 Conn. 729 (1994), after pointing out that alimony is to meet one's duty to support, and a modification is to meet charged circumstances. The finality of a judgment should not be subject to relitigation.

The court sustains the plaintiff's objections to defendants's requests to produce and grants plaintiff's motion for protective order dated February 22, 2002.

____________________ HARRIGAN, J.

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