Nangia v. Nangia

Connecticut Appellate Court

Nangia v. Nangia

669 A.2d 1248, 40 Conn. App. 916, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 57

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1996

Docket14023

StatusPublished

This text of 669 A.2d 1248 (Nangia v. Nangia) 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

Nangia v. Nangia, 669 A.2d 1248, 40 Conn. App. 916, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 57 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record and cannot conclude that the trial court abused [917]*917its discretion in its decision as to financial orders. We may not have decided the case as did the trial court were we the fact finders but that is not the test for determining whether an abuse of discretion exists.

A trial court has broad discretion in domestic relations cases because it has the opportunity to observe the parties and to assess the evidence. In order for us to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that the court incorrectly applied the law or could not reasonably conclude as it did. Wolfburg v. Wolfburg, 27 Conn. App. 396, 398, 606 A.2d 48 (1992). We can conclude neither on the facts of this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record and cannot conclude that the trial court abused [917]*917its discretion in its decision as to financial orders. We may not have decided the case as did the trial court were we the fact finders but that is not the test for determining whether an abuse of discretion exists.

A trial court has broad discretion in domestic relations cases because it has the opportunity to observe the parties and to assess the evidence. In order for us to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that the court incorrectly applied the law or could not reasonably conclude as it did. Wolfburg v. Wolfburg, 27 Conn. App. 396, 398, 606 A.2d 48 (1992). We can conclude neither on the facts of this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 A.2d 1248, 40 Conn. App. 916, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nangia-v-nangia-connappct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack