Winters v. Winters

Connecticut Appellate Court

Winters v. Winters

503 A.2d 178, 6 Conn. App. 83, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 809

Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided January 21, 1986·No. 3490·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this appeal from a judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties, the defendant, who represents himself on appeal, challenges the trial court’s division of assets and its award of alimony. The defendant also claims that he was inadequately represented by his trial counsel.

Appellate review of “ ‘a trial court’s exercise of its broad discretion in domestic relations cases is limited to the questions of whether the [trial] court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did.’ ” Holley v. Holley, 194 Conn. 25, 29, 478 A.2d 1000 (1984) (brackets in original), quoting Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 194, 440 A.2d 283 (1982). A review of the record reveals that the plaintiff’s testimony provided sufficient evidence to support the factual findings set out in the trial court’s memorandum of decision. The trial court, as the finder of fact, was free to reject contrary evidence. Smith v. Smith, 183 Conn. 121, 123, 438 A.2d 842 (1981). We conclude that the division of assets and the award of alimony chai[84]*84lenged by the defendant were made in accordance with law and were amply supported by the evidence. Bratz v. Bratz, 4 Conn. App. 504, 507-508, 495 A.2d 292 (1985).

The right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed to a defendant in a criminal proceeding under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution. Siemon v. Stoughton, 184 Conn. 547, 554, 440 A.2d 210 (1981). No such right is guaranteed to a defendant in a civil proceeding.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

In this appeal from a judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties, the defendant, who represents himself on appeal, challenges the trial court’s division of assets and its award of alimony. The defendant also claims that he was inadequately represented by his trial counsel.

Appellate review of “ ‘a trial court’s exercise of its broad discretion in domestic relations cases is limited to the questions of whether the [trial] court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did.’ ” Holley v. Holley, 194 Conn. 25, 29, 478 A.2d 1000 (1984) (brackets in original), quoting Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 194, 440 A.2d 283 (1982). A review of the record reveals that the plaintiff’s testimony provided sufficient evidence to support the factual findings set out in the trial court’s memorandum of decision. The trial court, as the finder of fact, was free to reject contrary evidence. Smith v. Smith, 183 Conn. 121, 123, 438 A.2d 842 (1981). We conclude that the division of assets and the award of alimony chai[84]*84lenged by the defendant were made in accordance with law and were amply supported by the evidence. Bratz v. Bratz, 4 Conn. App. 504, 507-508, 495 A.2d 292 (1985).

The right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed to a defendant in a criminal proceeding under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution. Siemon v. Stoughton, 184 Conn. 547, 554, 440 A.2d 210 (1981). No such right is guaranteed to a defendant in a civil proceeding.

There is no error.

Winters v. Winters, 503 A.2d 178, 6 Conn. App. 83, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 809 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

503 A.2d 178 (Winters v. Winters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related