You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Peralli v. Pitkat

Citations: 19 Conn. App. 803; 561 A.2d 986; 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 237Docket: 7395

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; June 21, 1989; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The plaintiff appeals a trial court order that imposed sanctions and mandated weekly payments for child support. The plaintiff argues that the court's assessment of her earning capacity lacked evidentiary support. However, the review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to justify the trial court's determination of her earning capacity. The appellate court affirms that it will not reexamine the factual findings. The ruling cites Golfin v. Plymouth Industrial Development Corp. of Connecticut, Inc., reinforcing the decision. The appeal is denied, and the trial court's order is upheld.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review and Factual Findings

Application: The appellate court asserts its role in refraining from reexamining factual findings made by the trial court.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirms that it will not reexamine the factual findings.

Assessment of Earning Capacity

Application: The appellate court finds that the trial court's determination of the plaintiff's earning capacity is supported by sufficient evidence.

Reasoning: The plaintiff argues that the court's assessment of her earning capacity lacked evidentiary support. However, the review of the record reveals sufficient evidence to justify the trial court's determination of her earning capacity.

Precedent and Affirmation of Trial Court Decisions

Application: The appellate decision cites precedent to support the affirmation of the trial court's ruling.

Reasoning: The ruling cites Golfin v. Plymouth Industrial Development Corp. of Connecticut, Inc., reinforcing the decision.

Sanctions and Child Support Orders

Application: The trial court's order imposing sanctions and mandating child support payments is upheld despite the plaintiff's challenge.

Reasoning: The plaintiff appeals a trial court order that imposed sanctions and mandated weekly payments for child support.