142 Conn. App. 345
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Married Oct 21, 1994; two minor sons born 1998 and 2004.
- Trial court on Oct 14, 2010 dissolved marriage with financial orders and sole custody to plaintiff Apryl Morrone.
- Court ordered 65% plaintiff / 35% defendant of marital assets; $197 weekly child support and $2,567 arrears.
- Guardian ad litem fees split 60% defendant / 40% plaintiff; marital home to be sold with proceeds split after $40,000 to plaintiff for loan repayment to her parents.
- $28,000 in plaintiff's 401(k) to plaintiff; defendant to repay $9,700 and $4,000 in attorney fees from pendente lite period; plaintiff to have sole possession of the home contents.
- Court awarded plaintiff sole physical and legal custody of the children; defendant granted visitation/parenting-time rights; defendant appeals on financial and custody orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the financial orders were proper given the record | Morrone argues the court properly weighed evidence and followed statutory criteria. | Morrone contends the court ignored evidence and over-weighted plaintiff's testimony. | No abuse of discretion; findings supported by the record. |
| Whether sole custody to plaintiff was proper | Best interests supported by family relations officer and guardian ad litem. | Court should have given weight to joint custody considerations. | Affirmed; sole custody to plaintiff upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tracey v. Tracey, 97 Conn. App. 122 (2006) (appellate deference to trial court in domestic relations)
- de Repentigny v. de Repentigny, 121 Conn. App. 451 (2010) (broad discretion in asset division and statutory criteria)
- Watrous v. Watrous, 108 Conn. App. 813 (2008) (interwoven nature of financial orders; deference to factual findings)
- Casey v. Casey, 82 Conn. App. 378 (2004) (presumption of correctness for trial court’s factual findings)
- Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275 (1991) (court not bound to accept expert opinion of guardian ad litem)
- Stahl v. Bayliss, 98 Conn. App. 63 (2006) (broad custody discretion; best interests standard)