R. S. v. E. S.
Decision Date | 25 January 2022 |
Docket Number | AC 43630 |
Citation | 210 Conn.App. 327,269 A.3d 970 |
Parties | R. S. v. E. S. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
E. S., self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
Kieran J. Costello, Fairfield, and Sean R. Plumb, Bridgeport, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Alvord, Moll and Alexander, Js.
The self-represented defendant, E. S., appeals following the trial court's judgment dissolving the marriage of the defendant and the plaintiff, R. S. We dismiss as moot the defendant's appeal with respect to the court's pendente lite order imposing certain travel restrictions. We conclude that the remainder of the defendant's claims are meritless and do not warrant substantive discussion. We affirm the judgment.
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. The parties were married on August 15, 2010, and they have one minor child still living. The child's twin died shortly after birth. The plaintiff commenced this dissolution action in September, 2017. On September 20, 2017, a temporary restraining order was vacated by way of a stipulation approved by the court, Wenzel, J . On September 17, 2018, the court entered pendente lite orders with respect to certain travel restrictions and an order that the plaintiff's counsel hold the defendant's passport. On March 20, 2019, the court, Rodriguez, J. , granted the plaintiff's motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor child. On May 23, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to seal a specific document and further ordered that neither party may "file proceedings without permission of the court." Additional documents also were sealed by the court on February 14, 2019, July 11, 2019, and October 21, 2019. On October 18, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine, seeking to preclude the defendant from presenting evidence at trial on the basis that he had not complied with the court's standing order for trial management. The court, Diana, J. , granted the motion in limine.1 On October 21, 2019, the first day of trial, the defendant orally requested a continuance, which was denied. Following trial, wherein both the defendant and the plaintiff testified, the court issued its memorandum of decision dissolving the parties’ marriage on November 19, 2019. This appeal followed.2 On January 9, 2020, the court, Grossman, J. , granted the plaintiff's motion for an order that the defendant pay $52,531.25 to the plaintiff's counsel to be held in escrow pending the resolution of this appeal. On January 15, 2020, the defendant amended his appeal to challenge this order.
On appeal, the defendant challenges numerous decisions of the trial court, including the court's order imposing travel restrictions rendered pendente lite. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Altraide v. Altraide , 153 Conn. App. 327, 332, 101 A.3d 317, cert. denied, 315 Conn. 905, 104 A.3d 759 (2014). "[T]he nature of a pendente lite order, entered in the course of dissolution proceedings, is such that its duration is inherently limited because, once the final judgment of dissolution is rendered, the order ceases to exist." Sweeney v. Sweeney , 271 Conn. 193, 202, 856 A.2d 997 (2004). (Citation omitted.) Altraide v. Altraide , supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial