Wiegand v. Wiegand
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 344
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Married on April 1, 1989; no children born of the marriage.
- Jan. 16, 2009: plaintiff, pro se, files a complaint for dissolution.
- Jan. 27, 2009: defendant, pro se, files her answer.
- Trial included testimony from plaintiff, defendant, and Stegmeir; the court questioned the parties extensively.
- The trial court granted dissolution and disposed of finances and property; no alimony awarded to either party.
- On appeal, plaintiff contends the court erred on Practice Book § 25-5(a)(1), alleged prejudice, alimony, and the financial/property orders; court partly reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court followed automatic orders under Practice Book § 25-5(a)(1). | Wiegand argues Stegmeir’s disposal of belongings violated the automatic orders. | Wiegand’s argument about violations lacks proper procedural basis and record support. | No reversible error; court acted properly. |
| Whether the court displayed judicial bias against plaintiff. | Plaintiff claims hostile, biased treatment by the court. | Defendant did not address bias; the record shows no sustained bias. | Judicial bias not established; no plain error. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying alimony. | plaintiff was unemployed and destitute; alimony should have been awarded. | Court considered factors but did not award alimony. | Abuse of discretion; alimony should have been or substantial support provided. |
| Whether the debt allocation and property distribution were unjust. | 72% of debt to plaintiff and limited asset distribution unfair. | Financial orders interrelated; remand appropriate for reconsideration. | Remanded for reconsideration of all financial orders on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Desai v. Desai, 119 Conn.App. 224 (2010) (clearly erroneous standard; broad deference to trial court findings)
- Kovalsick v. Kovalsick, 125 Conn.App. 265 (2010) (reversal of inequitable alimony/financial orders when fairness demands)
- Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348 (2005) (alimony/asset division must reflect fairness; not punitive to one party)
- Pellow v. Pellow, 113 Conn.App. 122 (2009) (remand to reconsider all financial orders when necessary)
- Watrous v. Watrous, 108 Conn.App. 813 (2008) (appearance of impropriety can support bias claims)
- LaBow v. LaBow, 13 Conn.App. 330 (1988) (trial court controls witness questioning and order of proceedings)