Chambliss v. Chambliss

Decision Date06 July 1976
Citation171 Conn. 278,370 A.2d 924
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesCarol CHAMBLISS v. Samuel CHAMBLISS.

Francis A. Smith, Jr., Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).

David Goldstein, Bridgeport, with whom was George J. Markley, Fairfield, for appellee (defendant).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The decisive issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of alimony awarded to the plaintiff in the judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties.

It is well settled that the trial court's decision as to the type and amount of property assigned or alimony awarded in an action for divorce or dissolution of a marriage is based upon the circumstances of the parties to the action and is within the sound discretion of the trial court, taking into account the length of the marriage, the causes of the dissolution, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties and, in the case of a parent to whom custody of minor children is awarded, the desirability of that parent securing employment. These criteria have been codified in §§ 46-51 and 46-52 of the General Statutes. See also Krieble v. Krieble, 168 Conn. 7, 357 A.2d 475.

The court's finding and memorandum of decision in this case clearly indicate that it fully considered these criteria in making the award which it did. We find no abuse of discretion in the judgment of the court.

There is no error.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Ruiz
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1976
  • Sands v. Sands
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 17, 1982
    ...the sound discretion of the trial court ...." Fucci v. Fucci, 179 Conn. 174, 181, 425 A.2d 592 (1979), quoting Chambliss v. Chambliss, 171 Conn. 278, 279, 370 A.2d 924 (1976). As this court stated in Aguire v. Aguire, 171 Conn. 312, 313-14, 370 A.2d 948 (1976): " '[T]rial courts have a dist......
  • North v. North
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1981
    ...into account the criteria set forth in § 46b-82. 3 Fucci v. Fucci, 179 Conn. 174, 182, 425 A.2d 592 (1979); Chambliss v. Chambliss, 171 Conn. 278, 279, 370 A.2d 924 (1976). The husband contests the award of counsel fees. Counsel fees also call for the exercise of judicial discretion. El Idr......
  • Posada v. Posada
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1980
    ...v. Ayers, 172 Conn. 316, 321-22, 374 A.2d 233 (1977); Aguire v. Aguire, 171 Conn. 312, 313, 370 A.2d 948 (1976); Chambliss v. Chambliss, 171 Conn. 278, 279, 370 A.2d 924 (1976). That discretion must of course be exercised within the bounds created by the applicable statutes. In interpreting......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT