Packard v. Packard

186 A.3d 795, 181 Conn. App. 404

• Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
• Decided: April 24, 2018
• Docket: AC40445
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Rebecca M. Packard, appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage with the plaintiff, Jay B. Packard. This appeal has been amended three times, challenging orders entered after judgment. Specifically, the defendant (1) claims that as to the April 7, 2017 judgment, the findings, conclusions and orders are erroneous; (2) challenges the July 28, 2017 order regarding renovations to the marital home; (3) challenges the August 18, 2017 order requiring her to sign a release of medical information to the guardian ad litem; and (4) challenges the October 6, 2017 orders regarding facilitating the sale of the marital home. 1 Additionally, she asserts state and federal constitutional violations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, in her lengthy and detailed brief, presents no legal analysis and cites virtually no case law. 2 A narrative account of the demise of the parties' relationship and the effect of various orders on the defendant, however compelling, does not suffice as an adequate brief under our procedural law. 3 "[F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal ... the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs.... The parties may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Buhl , 321 Conn. 688 , 724, 138 A.3d 868 (2016) ; see also Getty Properties Corp. v. ATKR , LLC , 315 Conn. 387 , 413, 107 A.3d 931 (2015) (claim inadequately briefed when appellants undertook "no analysis or application of the law to the facts of [the] case"); Taylor v. Mucci, 288 Conn. 379 , 383 n.4, 952 A.2d 776 (2008) (analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, required to avoid abandoning issue by failing to brief issue properly; where claim receives only cursory attention without substantive discussion or citation of authorities, it is deemed abandoned). In this matter, we are unable to determine the legal bases for the claims and relief that the defendant seeks. As a result of the defendant's inadequate brief, we decline to address the claims raised therein.

The judgment is affirmed.

1 The defendant has filed additional amended appeals that were severed from this appeal and assigned a separate docket number. See Packard v. Packard , AC 41176.

2 The defendant's brief, on page 38, footnote 67, cited our decision in Kelly v. Kelly , 54 Conn. App. 50 , 732 A.2d 808 (1999), to support the following statement: "Unfortunately, although caselaw offers some protection of being held in contempt when such orders are in place ...."

3 "[Although] ... [i]t is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of [self-represented] litigants and when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the [self-represented] party ... we are also aware that [a]lthough we allow [self-represented] litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tonghini v. Tonghini , 152 Conn. App. 231 , 240, 98 A.3d 93 (2014).