Satter v. Satter
| Decision Date | 09 December 1965 |
| Citation | 153 Conn. 230,215 A.2d 415 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mildred L. SATTER v. Harvey W. SATTER. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Elsie K. Nemore, Norwalk, with whom was Leon R. Nemore, Norwalk, for appellant (plaintiff).
Sidney Vogel, Norwalk, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.
The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment rendered for the defendant dissolving and terminating their marriage subsequent to the rendition of a decree of legal separation awarded to the plaintiff on the ground of the defendant's adultery. Despite the efforts of the plaintiff to retry the case in this court as evidenced by the twenty-five questions of law included in her request for a finding, the thirty-seven paragraphs of her draft finding which she maintains should have been included in the finding and the overruling of twenty-two claims of law which she advanced in the trial court, there is but one question before us on this appeal: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting the defendant's petition to dissolve and terminate the marriage?
In 1955, the legislature enacted Public Act No. 390, now General Statutes §§ 46-29 and 46-30, which provided that a legal separation could be decreed upon the petition of a party on grounds which would have entitled that party to a divorce. Such a separation would have the effect of a divorce except that neither party would be free to marry any third party unless a decree dissolving and terminating the marriage was subsequently rendered upon petition of either party. The only restriction imposed by the act upon the court in granting a dissolution decree is that the court find that the parties have not resumed marital relations since the rendition of the decree of legal separation.
The parties were married in 1951. The plaintiff obtained her decree of legal separation on April 24, 1964. On September 17, 1964, the defendant filed his petition to dissolve and terminate the marriage. The trial court found that the parties had not resumed marital relations and granted the petition.
But one case, arising under the 1955 act, has reached this court on appeal since the enactment of the legislation. Lee v. Lee, 145 Conn. 355, 143 A.2d 154. We stated that the relief which may be granted to either party under this act is essentially equitable in nature and may be granted or denied in the descretion of the trial court. Id., 360, 143 A.2d 154. We held ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashmore v. Hartford Hosp.
...(evidentiary ruling); Soybel Drug Co. v. Soybel , 159 Conn. 603, 603, 267 A.2d 442 (1970) (granting of injunction); Satter v. Satter , 153 Conn. 230, 232, 215 A.2d 415 (1965) (granting of petition to dissolve marriage); Grievance Committee v. Nevas , 139 Conn. 660, 666–67, 96 A.2d 802 (1953......
-
Thomas v. Thomas
...court find that the parties have not resumed marital relations since the rendition of the decree of legal separation. Satter v. Satter, 153 Conn. 230, 231, 215 A.2d 415. Thus it would appear from the terms of the statute that the court had the power to grant the husband's petition in this c......
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 126524
...cited. While the courts may consider equities in considering both divorce petitions and actions for legal separations; Satter v. Satter, 153 Conn. 230, 232, 215 A.2d 145; Lee v. Lee, 145 Conn. 355, 360, 143 A.2d 154; equitable doctrines of clean hands and estoppel are not applicable where t......
-
Hatch v. Hatch
...under the act is essentially equitable in nature and may be granted or denied in the discretion of the trial court. Satter v. Satter, 153 Conn. 230, 231, 215 A.2d 415; Lee v. Lee, 145 Conn. 355, 360, 143 A.2d 154. The entry of the decree of legal separation in the original action must be pr......