MacCalmont v. MacCalmont

Connecticut Appellate Court

MacCalmont v. MacCalmont

503 A.2d 624, 6 Conn. App. 117, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 817

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 28, 1986

Docket2932

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 503 A.2d 624 (MacCalmont v. MacCalmont) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacCalmont v. MacCalmont, 503 A.2d 624, 6 Conn. App. 117, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 817 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this appeal from the judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties, the defendant challenges the court’s division of assets, orders for support for two minor children, award of counsel fees to the plaintiff, and the fairness of the trial. “The trial court has broad discretion in domestic relations cases, and our review of the exercise of such discretion is limited to whether the trial court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did. Holley v. Holley, 194 Conn. 25, 29, 478 A.2d 1000 (1984). A review of the record makes it clear that the division of assets [and other orders were] . . . neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion. Anderson v. Anderson, 191 Conn. 46, 57, 463 A.2d 578 (1983); Solla v. Solla, 3 Conn. App. 415, 416, 489 A.2d 395 (1985).” Gincavage v. Gincavage, 4 Conn. App. 519, 495 A.2d 723 (1985).

The defendant makes an additional claim, namely, that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court’s supposedly verbatim adoption of the plaintiff’s memorandum of request for orders. We disagree. The [118]*118court did not adopt the plaintiffs proposal verbatim. It made several changes from the requested orders in issuing its orders. Furthermore, “[t]he ultimate test as to the adequacy of findings is whether they are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for the decision and whether they are supported by evidence.” Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275, 285, 494 A.2d 576 (1985); see also Cameron v. Avonridge, 3 Conn. App. 230, 235, 486 A.2d 661 (1985).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

In this appeal from the judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties, the defendant challenges the court’s division of assets, orders for support for two minor children, award of counsel fees to the plaintiff, and the fairness of the trial. “The trial court has broad discretion in domestic relations cases, and our review of the exercise of such discretion is limited to whether the trial court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did. Holley v. Holley, 194 Conn. 25, 29, 478 A.2d 1000 (1984). A review of the record makes it clear that the division of assets [and other orders were] . . . neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion. Anderson v. Anderson, 191 Conn. 46, 57, 463 A.2d 578 (1983); Solla v. Solla, 3 Conn. App. 415, 416, 489 A.2d 395 (1985).” Gincavage v. Gincavage, 4 Conn. App. 519, 495 A.2d 723 (1985).

The defendant makes an additional claim, namely, that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court’s supposedly verbatim adoption of the plaintiff’s memorandum of request for orders. We disagree. The [118]*118court did not adopt the plaintiffs proposal verbatim. It made several changes from the requested orders in issuing its orders. Furthermore, “[t]he ultimate test as to the adequacy of findings is whether they are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for the decision and whether they are supported by evidence.” Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275, 285, 494 A.2d 576 (1985); see also Cameron v. Avonridge, 3 Conn. App. 230, 235, 486 A.2d 661 (1985).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 A.2d 624, 6 Conn. App. 117, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maccalmont-v-maccalmont-connappct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack