Zabit v. Zabit, No. 077652 (Jul. 22, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Zabit v. Zabit, No. 077652 (Jul. 22, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6918

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 22, 1992

DocketNo. 077652

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6918 (Zabit v. Zabit, No. 077652 (Jul. 22, 1992)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zabit v. Zabit, No. 077652 (Jul. 22, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6918 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION de MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE (#123) AND MOTION TO REARGUE/MODIFY AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT (#128) A hearing on the defendant's motion (#123) dated February 28, 1992 and on the plaintiff's motion for contempt (#125) dated March 18, 1992 was held before the undersigned who filed a memorandum of decision on June 24, 1992 deciding only the plaintiff's motion. Reference to said memorandum (#127) is made for the statement of facts, issues and the conclusions of the court.

The defendant never brought a citation based on 46b-86 (b) Connecticut General Statutes to modify the alimony order but rather alleged "a significant and material change in the circumstances of the parties to warrant a termination or modification of the alimony award". A modification based on46b-86 (b) must be pleaded to put the other party on notice, Connolly v. Connolly, 191 Conn. 468, at 473 et seq.

The defendant's evidence came in without objection but did not prove ". . . a change of circumstances as to alter the financial seeds of. . ." the plaintiff, Kaplan v. Kaplan, 186 Conn. 387.

Motions (#123) and (#128) are each denied.

HARRIGAN, J. CT Page 6919

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION de MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE (#123) AND MOTION TO REARGUE/MODIFY AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT (#128) A hearing on the defendant's motion (#123) dated February 28, 1992 and on the plaintiff's motion for contempt (#125) dated March 18, 1992 was held before the undersigned who filed a memorandum of decision on June 24, 1992 deciding only the plaintiff's motion. Reference to said memorandum (#127) is made for the statement of facts, issues and the conclusions of the court.

The defendant never brought a citation based on 46b-86 (b) Connecticut General Statutes to modify the alimony order but rather alleged "a significant and material change in the circumstances of the parties to warrant a termination or modification of the alimony award". A modification based on46b-86 (b) must be pleaded to put the other party on notice, Connolly v. Connolly, 191 Conn. 468, at 473 et seq.

The defendant's evidence came in without objection but did not prove ". . . a change of circumstances as to alter the financial seeds of. . ." the plaintiff, Kaplan v. Kaplan, 186 Conn. 387.

Motions (#123) and (#128) are each denied.

HARRIGAN, J. CT Page 6919

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zabit-v-zabit-no-077652-jul-22-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack