Serrano & Serrano, LLC - Connecticut Lawyers - Accidents, Divorce, Social Security Disability, Immigration, Bankruptcy - Hartford 860 236-9350 * Waterbury 203 729-6100 * Toll-Free 800 856-6400

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Kaczynski v. Kaczynski (SC 18235) November 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Bridgeport

Synopsis:  The old rule was that if a trial court did not indicate which standard of proof had been used, it was presumed the court applied the standard of a fair preponderance of the evidence.  The new rule is that if a trial court in a case requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence fails to state what standard of proof it has applied, a reviewing court will presume that the correct standard was used.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294cr5.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 121, 981 A.2d 1068 (Conn. 2009)

  For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Mickey v. Mickey (SC 18126) July 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  A correction officer’s disability retirement benefits, awarded after the divorce, cannot be included as part of the parties’ marital assets and subject to division between the parties even though the divorce judgment required that retirement benefits be divided.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR292/292CR98.pdf

Case Citation:  292 Conn. 597, 974 A.2d 641 (2009)

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Perricone v. Perricone (SC 17683) June 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  The parties entered into a confidentiality agreement during their divorce.  The separation agreement for the divorce did not include the separation agreement.  After the divorce, the wife argued that the confidentiality agreement was no longer in force because it was not included in the separation agreement.  The Supreme Court disagreed, stating it would have been “highly improbable” that the parties, upon dividing their property, intended to reduce the value of their property by exposing the husband’s business immediately to the harm that the agreement was intended to prevent.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR292/292CR78.pdf

Case Citation:  292 Conn. 187, 972 A.2d 666 (2009)

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Isham v. Isham (SC 18270) June 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Stamford

Synopsis:  Whether bonuses should be included as salary so as to trigger a modification of alimony depended on the parties’ intention.

Case Link:  http://www.serranolawyers.com/wpress/wp-admin/post-new.php

Case Citation:  292 Conn. 171  (2009)

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Utz v. Utz (AC 28780) February 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Norwich

Synopsis:  Although a divorce court may order time-limited alimony to allow a spouse to support herself while she re-enters the job market, a court may order such alimony for other reasons.  Thus it was not error to award weekly alimony of $1000 to a wife even if that amount did not provide her with any incentive to become employed.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP151.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Gamble - Perugini (AC 29280) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Waterbury

Synopsis:  In entering divorce orders for alimony, property division and educational support, the court properly discredited the husband’s claims about the amount of his income and assets, given that he owned a 9 passenger plane and paid for a pilot.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP116.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Boyne v. Boyne (AC 28996) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  In dividing the obligation for unreimbursed medical and day care expenses in a divorce case, the court must take alimony into account.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP123.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Gil v. Gil (AC 28760) October 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  Although contingency attorney fees (fees based on results) are not allowed in a dissolution of marriage case, such fees are allowed in post-judgment contempt proceedings because in these proceedings an award of attorney fees may be used to punish a party for his or her behavior.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP514.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Kerrigan v. Cmmr. of Public Health (SC 17718) 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Synopsis:  Allowing heterosexuals to marry but homosexuals only to enter civil unions creates a cognizable harm under the Connecticut State Constitution due to the pernicious discrimination gay men and lesbians face and because marriage carries a status and significance that civil unions do not.  Classifications based on sexual orientation constitute a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the State Constitution, thus making statutes that discriminate against gays subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny.  The state has provided insufficient justification for barring same sex couples from marrying.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Finan v. Finan (SC 17918) July 2008

Trial Court:  Stamford  

Synopsis:  In making financial orders, a divorce court should consider preseparation dissipation of marital assets, so long as the dissipation occurs (1) in contemplation of divorce or separation or (2) while the marriage is in serious jeopardy or is undergoing an irretrievable breakdown.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR287/287CR118.pdf

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Rivers v. New Britain (SC 17863) July 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Britain

Synopsis:  City was responsible for fall on an ice-covered sidewalk, despite statute allowing city to transfer responsibility to adjoining property owner, because the adjoining property owner was the State, which was protected from the claim by governmental immunity.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR288/288CR116.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Mundell v. Mundell  (AC 27679) September 2008

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  Any financial order entered by a divorce court may be appealed, whether it is a temporary order entered during the divorce (pendente lite), an order entered at the time of dissolution, or a post-judgment order.  If an order has been appealed, the divorce court must still consider any motion to modify the order while the appeal is pending and the divorce court must consider the merits of the motion to modify.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP484.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Golden v. Mandel (AC 28866) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Stamford - Norwalk

Synopsis:  A division of assets that allowed a husband to keep inherited property was upheld on appeal because the wife failed to seek articulation of the divorce court’s ruling.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP438.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Schade v. Schade (AC 28543) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Hartford

Synopsis:  An insurance agency vice president who lost his position after an investigation into possible fraud took another position earning much less.  He filed to reduce his alimony payments.  The divorce court refused to modify the alimony to a level based on his lower earnings, noting that he was not actively pursuing employment that would be available to someone with his experience and training.  The divorce court’s ruling was upheld on appeal.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP465.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Cannon v. Cannon (AC 28514) August 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Stamford - Norwalk

Synopsis:  A motion to modify unallocated alimony and child support heard in 2006 was granted retroactively to the filing of the motion in 2003, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-86(a).

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP109/109AP457.pdf

   For Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Gosselin v. Gosselin (AC 27453) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  New London at Norwich

Synopsis:  In granting a post-judgment motion to reduce alimony, the court considered an increase in the wife’s assets, even though the husband’s motion to reduce alimony only referred to an increase in income, because the wife was aware from the proceedings that the husband was relying on the increased assets.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP480.pdf

   For  Family Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Signore v. Signore (AC 28040) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Fairfield at Bridgeport

Synopsis:  Divorce court denied post-judgment motion to reduce alimony, holding that employer’s payment of automobile and health insurance premiums and of automobile expenses for employee would be considered as income for the employee.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP478.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Kemah (SC 18148) November 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Danielson

Synopsis:  A complainant’s signing of a release to provide the prosecution with mental health records does not mean the complainant has waived confidentiality so as to allow the records to be released to the defendant.  The prosecution reviews the records as part of its obligation to decide whether there are reasonable grounds to proceed with criminal charges.  The trial court must still review the records in camera to see if they should be released to the defendant.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR4.pdf