Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tomanelli v. Tomanelli
Citations: 5 Conn. App. 149; 497 A.2d 91; 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1120Docket: 3320
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; September 3, 1985; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
The plaintiff appealed a trial court judgment that denied a contempt motion from the defendant, who claimed the plaintiff failed to pay the correct amount of unallocated alimony and support. The trial court found the plaintiff in arrears of approximately $1,000 since December 1983 but declined to hold him in contempt due to a bona fide dispute regarding the modification of the alimony and support order. The plaintiff's motion to reargue was denied, leading to this appeal. Key points include: - The marriage was dissolved in July 1980, with the defendant awarded custody of three children and the right to occupy the marital residence under certain financial obligations. - The original judgment required the plaintiff to pay $2,000 monthly in unallocated alimony and support, subject to a $250 reduction once two children reached eighteen or became self-supporting. - A modification in July 1981 increased payments by $150 due to rising mortgage costs, while another modification in June 1983, granted due to the plaintiff's decreased income, reduced payments by $200. - The trial court, aware of an impending automatic reduction, intended the 1983 modification as temporary, not permanent. - The plaintiff failed to provide a transcript of the contempt hearing, which limited the appellate court's ability to review his due process claim. Without this record, the appellate court upheld the trial court's findings. - The appellate court agreed with the trial court's interpretation of the modification order and concluded there was no error in the judgment. The court also noted that the plaintiff's noncompliance was not willful, aligning with established legal principles regarding contempt. The other judges concurred with the opinion.