Seaver v. Seaver

521 A.2d 1053, 10 Conn. App. 134
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided March 10, 1987·No. 5069·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s judgment entering certain pendente lite orders in this dissolution case. The trial court issued a comprehensive and well reasoned memorandum of decision setting forth its factual findings in detail and applying the appropriate legal criteria. See Kaplan v. Kaplan, 8 Conn. App. 114, 116-18, 510 A.2d 1024 (1986). There is no requirement in the applicable statutes which makes it mandatory that a trial court consider the federal tax implications of its financial orders. The court’s judgment was not an abuse of its necessarily broad discretion. McPhee v. McPhee 186 Conn. 167, 177, 440 A.2d 274 (1982); Niles v. Niles, 9 Conn. App. 240, 254, 518 A.2d 932 (1986); Jetmore v. Jetmore, 6 Conn. App. 632, 634, 507 A.2d 116 (1986).

There is no error.

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

Seaver v. Seaver, 521 A.2d 1053, 10 Conn. App. 134 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

521 A.2d 1053 (Seaver v. Seaver) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maturo v. Maturo
995 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2010)
Weiss v. Weiss, No. Fa97-00395055 (Jan. 29, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 924 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Rolla v. Rolla
712 A.2d 440 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
Steczkowski v. Steczkowski, No. Fa93-0303775s (May 25, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5664 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Clement v. Clement
606 A.2d 36 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)
Hawkins v. Hawkins
526 A.2d 872 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)