Szilvasy v. Szilvasy

Connecticut Appellate Court

Szilvasy v. Szilvasy

487 A.2d 204, 3 Conn. App. 249, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 846

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1985

Docket2854

StatusPublished

This text of 487 A.2d 204 (Szilvasy v. Szilvasy) 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

Szilvasy v. Szilvasy, 487 A.2d 204, 3 Conn. App. 249, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 846 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal¹ from several awards of distribution arising out of a dissolution of marriage action between the parties. The defendant raises two main issues herein.² The first of these is that the court improperly distributed the parties’ property under General Statutes § 46b-81.

At oral argument, the defendant conceded that the trial court could reasonably have reached the decision that it did. It is well settled, in domestic relations cases, that this court does not find facts. “Our function is to decide whether the decision of the trial court was ‘clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record . . . .’ ” Gallo v. Gallo, 184 Conn. 36, 38, 440 A.2d 782 (1981).

The second argument, raised for the first time at oral argument, is that General Statutes § 46b-81 (a) and (c) are unconstitutional. The case was not tried [250]*250on this theory, nor did the defendant’s brief include this claim. The attempt to raise such an issue only at the hearing on appeal, where neither opposing counsel nor the court has been alerted to the claim, obviously calls for invocation of the rule of Practice Book § 3063 which provides that we will not decide issues not raised at the trial court. Chaplin v. Balkus, 189 Conn. 445, 447, 456 A.2d 286 (1983).

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 appeal¹ from several awards of distribution arising out of a dissolution of marriage action between the parties. The defendant raises two main issues herein.² The first of these is that the court improperly distributed the parties’ property under General Statutes § 46b-81.

At oral argument, the defendant conceded that the trial court could reasonably have reached the decision that it did. It is well settled, in domestic relations cases, that this court does not find facts. “Our function is to decide whether the decision of the trial court was ‘clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record . . . .’ ” Gallo v. Gallo, 184 Conn. 36, 38, 440 A.2d 782 (1981).

The second argument, raised for the first time at oral argument, is that General Statutes § 46b-81 (a) and (c) are unconstitutional. The case was not tried [250]*250on this theory, nor did the defendant’s brief include this claim. The attempt to raise such an issue only at the hearing on appeal, where neither opposing counsel nor the court has been alerted to the claim, obviously calls for invocation of the rule of Practice Book § 3063 which provides that we will not decide issues not raised at the trial court. Chaplin v. Balkus, 189 Conn. 445, 447, 456 A.2d 286 (1983).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 A.2d 204, 3 Conn. App. 249, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szilvasy-v-szilvasy-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack