Kleinman v. Kleinman, No. Fa82 20 07 67 S (Dec. 13, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Kleinman v. Kleinman, No. Fa82 20 07 67 S (Dec. 13, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10815

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 13, 1993

DocketNo. FA82 20 07 67 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10815 (Kleinman v. Kleinman, No. Fa82 20 07 67 S (Dec. 13, 1993)) 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

Kleinman v. Kleinman, No. Fa82 20 07 67 S (Dec. 13, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10815 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: (1) OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ALIMONY (2) MOTION TO DISMISS The defendant seeks to modify a judgment of this court rendered approximately ten years ago. The defendant commenced this post-judgment proceeding by mailing a copy of a "Motion For Alimony" to the plaintiff and to the lawyer who represented the plaintiff at the time the original divorce judgment was entered. These mailings by the defendant are not sufficient for this court to obtain personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff. See Gimbel v. Gimbel, 147 Conn. 561 (1960).

The court has reviewed the court file. It does not contain any pleadings filed after the motion for alimony except the plaintiff's objection, motion to dismiss and related briefs and documents. Accordingly, the court concludes the plaintiff has not waived the jurisdictional defect.

The motion to dismiss is granted. CT Page 10816

THIM, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 RE: (1) OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ALIMONY (2) MOTION TO DISMISS The defendant seeks to modify a judgment of this court rendered approximately ten years ago. The defendant commenced this post-judgment proceeding by mailing a copy of a "Motion For Alimony" to the plaintiff and to the lawyer who represented the plaintiff at the time the original divorce judgment was entered. These mailings by the defendant are not sufficient for this court to obtain personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff. See Gimbel v. Gimbel, 147 Conn. 561 (1960).

The court has reviewed the court file. It does not contain any pleadings filed after the motion for alimony except the plaintiff's objection, motion to dismiss and related briefs and documents. Accordingly, the court concludes the plaintiff has not waived the jurisdictional defect.

The motion to dismiss is granted. CT Page 10816

THIM, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinman-v-kleinman-no-fa82-20-07-67-s-dec-13-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack