Casanova v. Casanova
| Citation | 348 A.2d 668,166 Conn. 304 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1974 |
| Parties | Vincent J. CASANOVA v. Carmel CASANOVA. |
David M. Reilly, Jr., Hew Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Donald G. Walsh, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was William M. Mack, Guilford, for appelle (plaintiff).
Before HOUSE, C.J, and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
The plaintiff instituted a divorce action against the defendant who moved for an order for temporary alimony and support for the minor children of whom she had custody. At the hearing on the defendant's motion, the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of § 380 of the Practice Book, submitted a financial affidavit which purported to set forth his assets, liabilities, income and expenses. The affidavit contained false information. It indicated that the plaintiff's annual income was approximately $13,000. In subsequent deposition proceedings, it was determined that in fact his income for the period reported was, in fact, in excess of $24,000, and that he had not disclosed as an asset a $5000 interest in a limited partnership.
What a husband can afford to pay for support and alimony pendente lite is a material consideration in the court's determination as to what is a proper order. England v. England, 138 Conn. 410, 415, 85 A.2d 483. A court is entitled to rely upon the truth and accuracy of sworn statements required by § 380 of the Practice Book, and a misrepresentation of assets and income is a serious and intolerable dereliction on the part of the affiant which goes to the very heart of the judicial proceeding.
While the present appeal arises from a ruling on a motion to modify the original order which was predicated upon the false information contained in the plaintiff's affidavit, justice to the defendant requires that she have a new and full hearing on her original motion for alimony and support, untainted by the plaintiff's misrepresentation.
There is error, the ruling on the defendant's motion to modify the order of temporary alimony and support is set aside, and the case is remanded for a new and full hearing on the merits of the motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hutchinson
...do not directly support the proposition that marital asset nondisclosure is extrinsic fraud or fraud on the court. In Connecticut, Casanova v. Casanova is inconsistent with the latter case of Billington v. Billington because Billington determined fraud on the court "in the marital litigatio......
-
Masters v. Masters
...trial court must rely in fashioning a decree; Kenworthy v. Kenworthy, 180 Conn. 129, 131, 429 A.2d 837 (1980); Casanova v. Casanova, 166 Conn. 304, 305, 348 A.2d 668 (1974); and have not hesitated to order an opening or modification of a judgment induced by fraud when the circumstances have......
-
Grayson v. Grayson, 2614
...and intolerable dereliction on the part of the affiant which goes to the very heart of the judicial proceeding. Casanova v. Casanova, 166 Conn. 304, 305, 348 A.2d 668 (1974). The defendant focused her claim of fraud in the plaintiff's affidavit on the following summary of undisputed...
-
Billington v. Billington
...and intolerable dereliction on the part of the affiant which goes to the very heart of the judicial proceeding." Casanova v. Casanova, 166 Conn. 304, 305, 348 A.2d 668 (1974). "These sworn statements have great significance in domestic disputes in that they serve to facilitate the process a......