Nitchke v. Nitchke, No. Fa 90 0379396 (Sep. 18, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Nitchke v. Nitchke, No. Fa 90 0379396 (Sep. 18, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5325-AAAA

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided September 18, 1996·No. No. FA 90 0379396·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION IN RE AMENDED MOTION TO CORRECT AND RECONSIDER Paragraph No. 1 of the Amended Motion to Correct and Reconsider is granted and the word "plaintiff" in the third sentence in paragraph 11 of the memorandum of decision dated July 1, 1996 is deleted and the word "defendant" is substituted in its place.

Paragraph No. 2 of said Amended Motion is also granted and the court will hear argument and testimony with respect to the amount of arrearage. This is necessary because the briefs of the respective parties are not in agreement as to many items of fact.

The court will also reconsider the question of the reduction in amount of support for James. This is due to the question of the plaintiff's fault and misconduct in losing his position. SeeSauchione v. Sauchione, 173 Conn. 397, 403; also the equitable doctrine of "clean hands." See German v. German, 122 Conn. 155. Counsel will be requested to submit authorities.

By stipulation the matters of the children's medical insurance, Mrs. Maloney's medical insurance, and the camp costs are continued to a later date.

John M. Alexander State Trial Referee

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION IN RE AMENDED MOTION TO CORRECT AND RECONSIDER Paragraph No. 1 of the Amended Motion to Correct and Reconsider is granted and the word "plaintiff" in the third sentence in paragraph 11 of the memorandum of decision dated July 1, 1996 is deleted and the word "defendant" is substituted in its place.

Paragraph No. 2 of said Amended Motion is also granted and the court will hear argument and testimony with respect to the amount of arrearage. This is necessary because the briefs of the respective parties are not in agreement as to many items of fact.

The court will also reconsider the question of the reduction in amount of support for James. This is due to the question of the plaintiff's fault and misconduct in losing his position. SeeSauchione v. Sauchione, 173 Conn. 397, 403; also the equitable doctrine of "clean hands." See German v. German, 122 Conn. 155. Counsel will be requested to submit authorities.

By stipulation the matters of the children's medical insurance, Mrs. Maloney's medical insurance, and the camp costs are continued to a later date.

John M. Alexander State Trial Referee

Nitchke v. Nitchke, No. Fa 90 0379396 (Sep. 18, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5325-AAAA (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5325-AAAA (Nitchke v. Nitchke, No. Fa 90 0379396 (Sep. 18, 1996)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related