Sabrowski v. Sabrowski
Decision Date | 22 May 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 17738.,17738. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | George SABROWSKI v. Beverly R. SABROWSKI. |
Eric W. Callahan, New London, for the appellant (plaintiff).
James H. Lee, Fairfield, and Martin M. Rutchik, Norwich, for the appellee (defendant).
BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and ZARELLA, Js.
The plaintiff, George Sabrowski, appeals, following our grant of certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court's order modifying the award of alimony and medical expenses payable to the defendant, Beverly R. Sabrowski. Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 95 Conn.App. 625, 626, 631, 897 A.2d 700 (2006). The plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly decided this case on the basis of an issue that never had been raised or briefed. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The following relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court. "The marriage of the parties was dissolved by the court pursuant to a stipulated judgment on May 13, 1999. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant alimony in the amount of $550 per week, terminating when the defendant either reached age sixty-two, became eligible for medicare benefits, remarried or died. In addition, the plaintiff was ordered, as additional alimony, to maintain medical and dental coverage for the defendant and to pay 50 percent of her unreimbursed medical and dental expenses as long as he had a continuing obligation to pay alimony.
" Id., at 626-28, 897 A.2d 700.
The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances and, further, that the trial court improperly (1) assessed the circumstances of both parties pursuant to General Statutes §§ 46b-82 and 46b-86, (2) modified the award of alimony, and (3) modified the plaintiff's obligation to pay the defendant's unreimbursed medical bills and to maintain medical insurance on behalf of the defendant. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the trial court (1) improperly considered the change in only the plaintiff's income in determining that there had been a change in circumstances, (2) incorrectly calculated the percentage decrease in alimony in modifying the original order, and (3) incorrectly classified health and dental insurance as "`periodic payment[s] of permanent alimony or support'" in accordance with § 46b-86(a).
The Appellate Court did not address the defendant's specific claims on appeal. Instead, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Elson, No. 31511.
...inappropriate for an appellate court to consider a claim that was not raised and briefed on appeal; see, e.g., Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556, 560, 923 A.2d 686 (2007) (noting that Appellate Court limited to resolving claims raised by parties); or to engage in a level of review that ......
-
Skakel v. State Of Conn.
...would deprive the parties of an opportunity to present arguments regarding those issues." (Citations omitted.) Sabroski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556, 560, 923 A.2d 686 (2007). 55. Despite our long-standing precedent supporting the trial court's conclusion that the Bryant evidence would be ad......
-
Loring v. Planning and Zoning Com'n
...review to issues actually raised and briefed. See State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709, 715, 924 A.2d 809 (2007); Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556, 560, 923 A.2d 686, on remand, 105 Conn.App. 49, 935 A.2d 1037 (2007). Although questions by a few commission members during the hearing on the ......
-
Gosselin v. Gosselin
...(1993), rev'd, 230 Conn. 95, 644 A.2d 325 (1994). Our Supreme Court similarly reversed such action by this court in Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556, 923 A.2d 686, after remand, 105 Conn.App. 49, 935 A.2d 1037 (2007), and State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709, 715, 924 A.2d 809 (2007). The t......
-
2007 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...v. Pritchard, 281 Conn. 262 (2007) (imperfect appeal form did not implicate subject matter jurisdiction). 72. Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556 (2007) (reversing the Appellate Court because it had based its decision on an issue no one had raised). 73. Fernandes v. Rodriguez, 100 Conn. A......
-
Developments in Connecticut Family Law: 2006
...that the basis for the holding was never raised by the defendant or argued to the trial court or Appellate Court. Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556, 923 A.2d 686 (2007). 19. 94 Conn. App. 416, 892 A.2d 964 (2006). 20. Id. at 418. 21. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46b-86(a) provides, in relevant pa......