MacDonald v. MacDonald

Connecticut Appellate Court

MacDonald v. MacDonald

576 A.2d 601, 22 Conn. App. 806, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 291

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 27, 1990

Docket8577

StatusPublished

This text of 576 A.2d 601 (MacDonald v. MacDonald) 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

MacDonald v. MacDonald, 576 A.2d 601, 22 Conn. App. 806, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 291 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the trial court’s financial and property award in a dissolution action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this appeal, the plaintiff attacks the discretionary and factfinding functions of the trial court. In reaching its decision, the trial court properly considered the criteria set forth in General Statutes § 46b-81 and the evidence and financial affidavits of the parties. Our review of the record, transcripts and briefs fails to disclose any abuse of discretion. The trial court’s conclusions were in accordance with applicable law. “A fundamental principle in dissolution actions is that a trial court may exercise broad discretion in . . . dividing property as long as it considers all relevant statutory criteria.” Crocker v. Crocker, 13 Conn. App. 129, 131, 534 A.2d 1251 (1987). Our review of a trial court’s exercise of discretion is limited in domestic relations cases to “ ‘ “whether the [trial] court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did.” ’ Leo v. Leo, 197 Conn. 1, 4, 495 A.2d 704 (1985); Russo v. Russo, 1 Conn. App. 604, 607, 474 A.2d 473 (1984).” O’Connor v. O’Connor, 20 Conn. App. 812, 812-13, 567 A.2d 1230 (1989).

We find that the trial court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the trial court’s financial and property award in a dissolution action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this appeal, the plaintiff attacks the discretionary and factfinding functions of the trial court. In reaching its decision, the trial court properly considered the criteria set forth in General Statutes § 46b-81 and the evidence and financial affidavits of the parties. Our review of the record, transcripts and briefs fails to disclose any abuse of discretion. The trial court’s conclusions were in accordance with applicable law. “A fundamental principle in dissolution actions is that a trial court may exercise broad discretion in . . . dividing property as long as it considers all relevant statutory criteria.” Crocker v. Crocker, 13 Conn. App. 129, 131, 534 A.2d 1251 (1987). Our review of a trial court’s exercise of discretion is limited in domestic relations cases to “ ‘ “whether the [trial] court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did.” ’ Leo v. Leo, 197 Conn. 1, 4, 495 A.2d 704 (1985); Russo v. Russo, 1 Conn. App. 604, 607, 474 A.2d 473 (1984).” O’Connor v. O’Connor, 20 Conn. App. 812, 812-13, 567 A.2d 1230 (1989).

We find that the trial court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 A.2d 601, 22 Conn. App. 806, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonald-v-macdonald-connappct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack