Krieble v. Krieble

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Krieble v. Krieble

357 A.2d 475, 168 Conn. 7, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 915

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 18, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 357 A.2d 475 (Krieble v. Krieble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krieble v. Krieble, 357 A.2d 475, 168 Conn. 7, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 915 (Colo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decisive issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of alimony awarded to the plaintiff in its judgment granting a divorce to her on the uneontested ground of desertion. Despite the vigor with which the appeal has been prosecuted and defended and the substantial amounts involved in the award made by the trial court, the issue remains a simple one.

It is well settled that the trial court’s decision as to the type and amount of alimony awarded in a divorce action is based upon the circumstances of the parties to the action and “is within the sound discretion of the trial court, taking into account the circumstances of the case such as the amount of the estate of the husband, his income, his age, health and earning capacity and the age, health, station *8 and separate estate of the wife.” Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 488, 352 A.2d 277; see also Wood v. Wood, 165 Conn. 777, 783, 345 A.2d 5; Hotkowski v. Hotkowski, 165 Conn. 167, 170, 328 A.2d 674; Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345, 307 A.2d 146.

Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and reached its decision by the application of the standards which have been well established by our cases.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The decisive issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of alimony awarded to the plaintiff in its judgment granting a divorce to her on the uneontested ground of desertion. Despite the vigor with which the appeal has been prosecuted and defended and the substantial amounts involved in the award made by the trial court, the issue remains a simple one.

It is well settled that the trial court’s decision as to the type and amount of alimony awarded in a divorce action is based upon the circumstances of the parties to the action and “is within the sound discretion of the trial court, taking into account the circumstances of the case such as the amount of the estate of the husband, his income, his age, health and earning capacity and the age, health, station *8 and separate estate of the wife.” Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 488, 352 A.2d 277; see also Wood v. Wood, 165 Conn. 777, 783, 345 A.2d 5; Hotkowski v. Hotkowski, 165 Conn. 167, 170, 328 A.2d 674; Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345, 307 A.2d 146.

Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and reached its decision by the application of the standards which have been well established by our cases.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 A.2d 475, 168 Conn. 7, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krieble-v-krieble-conn-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack