Lashar v. Lashar, No. 65771 (Sep. 15, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Lashar v. Lashar, No. 65771 (Sep. 15, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8648

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1992

DocketNo. 65771

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8648 (Lashar v. Lashar, No. 65771 (Sep. 15, 1992)) 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

Lashar v. Lashar, No. 65771 (Sep. 15, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8648 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (#107) After hearing held on plaintiff's request to amend, it is hereby Ordered: denied; for the following reasons:

The allegations of the proposed amendment (i.e., the addition of five counts to the original one-count complaint) do not concern "acts and dealings between the parties necessarily connected with and dependent upon the marital relationship between them." DeFelippi v. DeFelippi,23 Conn. Sup. 352, 353 (1962). Rather, they concern events which occurred, in whole or in part, prior to the marriage and beginning in October, 1991. As such, there is a misjoinder in that the events do not arise out of the same transaction, viz., the marital relationship, and raise issues unconnected with issues in the several causes of action set forth in the first count of the complaint. Cf. Castonguay v. Castonguay,5 Conn. Sup. 401, 402 (1937).

GAFFNEY, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (#107) After hearing held on plaintiff's request to amend, it is hereby Ordered: denied; for the following reasons:

The allegations of the proposed amendment (i.e., the addition of five counts to the original one-count complaint) do not concern "acts and dealings between the parties necessarily connected with and dependent upon the marital relationship between them." DeFelippi v. DeFelippi,23 Conn. Sup. 352, 353 (1962). Rather, they concern events which occurred, in whole or in part, prior to the marriage and beginning in October, 1991. As such, there is a misjoinder in that the events do not arise out of the same transaction, viz., the marital relationship, and raise issues unconnected with issues in the several causes of action set forth in the first count of the complaint. Cf. Castonguay v. Castonguay,5 Conn. Sup. 401, 402 (1937).

GAFFNEY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lashar-v-lashar-no-65771-sep-15-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack