O'Connor v. O'Connor

Connecticut Appellate Court

O'Connor v. O'Connor

567 A.2d 1230, 20 Conn. App. 812, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 351

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedDecember 13, 1989

Docket7807

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 567 A.2d 1230 (O'Connor v. O'Connor) 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

O'Connor v. O'Connor, 567 A.2d 1230, 20 Conn. App. 812, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 351 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the court’s financial and property award in a dissolution action. We find no error.

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 awarding alimony and 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 con-[813]*813eluded 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).

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

There is no error.

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 court’s financial and property award in a dissolution action. We find no error.

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 awarding alimony and 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 con-[813]*813eluded 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).

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

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 A.2d 1230, 20 Conn. App. 812, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnor-v-oconnor-connappct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack