Tischbein v. Tischbein

495 A.2d 716, 4 Conn. App. 459, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1045
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJuly 9, 1985
Docket3187
StatusPublished

This text of 495 A.2d 716 (Tischbein v. Tischbein) 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
Tischbein v. Tischbein, 495 A.2d 716, 4 Conn. App. 459, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1045 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal arises from a dissolution of marriage action. The trial court rendered a judgment dissolving the marriage and awarded the defendant wife the marital residence provided she execute a note and second mortgage for $10,000 payable to the plaintiff husband on the occurence of the first of the following events: the defendant wife’s death, the closing date if the house is transferred, or on September 15,1996. In addition, the trial court permitted the defendant wife to retain her vested pension, her savings bonds and stocks, her savings and checking account, and other items of personalty. In addition to the $10,000 note, the trial court permitted the plaintiff husband to retain his ownership in two automobiles, a check for approximately $500 and any personalty presently in his possession or control. The plaintiff husband appealed that judgment.

On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the trial court’s assignment of the marital property.1 Connecticut’s [460]*460appellate courts have repeatedly, evidently to no avail, indicated that the scope of appellate review in domestic relations is limited to determining whether the trial court could reasonably conclude , as it did. Thode v. Thode, 190 Conn. 694, 699, 462 A.2d 4 (1983); Sweet v. Sweet, 190 Conn. 657, 664, 462 A.2d 1031 (1983); Carpenter v. Carpenter, 188 Conn. 736, 741-42, 453 A.2d 1151 (1982); Szilagyi v. Szilagyi, 3 Conn. App. 25, 28, 484 A.2d 469 (1984). This court has reviewed the record and finds that the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did.

There is no error.

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

Related

Carpenter v. Carpenter
453 A.2d 1151 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
Sweet v. Sweet
462 A.2d 1031 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1983)
Thode v. Thode
462 A.2d 4 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1983)
Barrett v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc.
480 A.2d 589 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1984)
Bielaska v. Town of Waterford
491 A.2d 1071 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Szilagyi v. Szilagyi
484 A.2d 469 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
495 A.2d 716, 4 Conn. App. 459, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tischbein-v-tischbein-connappct-1985.