Kittle v. Kittle, No. Fa88-0351764s (Sep. 24, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11813
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided September 24, 1998·No. No. FA88-0351764S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER CT Page 11814
Motion to Reopen and Modify Judgment is denied.

The judgment calls for alimony for a non-modifiable term and amount. The Stipulation for Judgment and Judgment contain no language which alludes to the termination of alimony upon the death, remarriage or cohabitation of the wife. The plain language of the parties' contract controls. Willis v. Willis, 14 CLT (9/26/88). Rau v. Rau, 37 Conn. App. 209, 211 (1995); Sheehanv. Balasic, 46 Conn. App. 327 (1997), cert. granted, 243 Conn. 945 (11/6/97). The language of the parties' agreement and the judgment of the court is unambiguous.

Anne C. Dranginis Judge, Superior Court

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

Kittle v. Kittle, No. Fa88-0351764s (Sep. 24, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11813 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11813 (Kittle v. Kittle, No. Fa88-0351764s (Sep. 24, 1998)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rau v. Rau
655 A.2d 800 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1995)
Sheehan v. Balasic
699 A.2d 1036 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1997)