Dicker v. Dicker

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** LORNA J. DICKER v. MICHAEL DICKER (AC 40644) DiPentima, C. J., and Sheldon and Pellegrino, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant previously had been dis- solved, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying the parties’ motions for contempt and issuing a remedial order regarding certain prior court-ordered payments. In her motion for con- tempt, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had wilfully underpaid the fees he owed for their children’s extracurricular activities, and in his motion for contempt, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff failed to pay her share of the children’s unreimbursed medical expenses. There- after, the trial court held hearings on the motions for contempt and various other pending motions, during which it determined that neither party could be held in contempt because they both believed that pursuant to certain prior court orders they were entitled to withhold payment from each other when and to the extent that the other party had failed to make a required payment to the other. The court also issued a remedial order that set forth a detailed procedure that the defendant was required to follow in the future for presenting proof of unreimbursed medical expenses to the plaintiff and calculating any amounts that he claimed the plaintiff owed him under prior court orders. The trial court then held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amounts that the parties currently owed each other related to the subject fees and expenses and ordered the parties to submit proposed orders. Following the hearing, the court found that the defendant owed the plaintiff $3742.08 for unpaid extracurricular activities fees and the plaintiff owed the defendant $2303.59 for unpaid unreimbursed medical expenses, and, therefore, it ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $1438.49, which was the net difference between the unpaid sums. Thereafter, the trial court denied in part the plaintiff’s motion ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals