Theonnes v. Theonnes
| Decision Date | 03 June 1980 |
| Citation | 181 Conn. 111,434 A.2d 343 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Phyllis J. THEONNES v. Karl E. THEONNES. |
Richard A. Volo, for appellant (plaintiff).
Hanon W. Russell, Milford, with whom, on the brief, was Edward H. Cantor, Orange, for appellee (defendant).
Before COTTER, C. J., and BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY and PARSKEY, JJ.
In March, 1968, the court (Meyers, J.) granted a divorce to the plaintiff, awarded her custody of the two minor children of the marriage and ordered the defendant to pay support of $50 per week for each child and alimony of $1 per year. In October, 1978, on the plaintiff's motion for modification, the court (D. Dorsey, J.) increased the support order to $60 per week for each child and continued the nominal alimony order. In January, 1979, the court (Wall, J.) denied the plaintiff's motion of modification. In May, 1979, the court (Hale, J.) granted the plaintiff's motion for modification and ordered support increased to $75 per week for each child and alimony to $50 per week. No appeal was taken from this judgment. Instead, the defendant moved to open and reargue the order for alimony and support claiming lack of notice and misrepresentations to the court. Alleging a material change of circumstances, the defendant also moved to modify both the support and the alimony orders. The court (Wall, J.) granted all three motions and reinstated the October, 1978 order as of June 4, 1979, thereby reducing support to $60 per week and alimony to $1 a year, and the plaintiff appealed. We reverse.
Although the court purported to open the May, 1979 judgment, in fact it enforced that judgment until the effective date of its own order and thereupon modified it. The stated basis of the court's action was (1) the failure of the plaintiff to file a financial affidavit with Judge Hale and (2) the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate, before either Judge Hale or Judge Wall, that there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the hearings of March, 1968, October, 1978 and January, 1979. The defendant does not question the validity of Judge Hale's order because of lack of notice or any other reason. The limited issue before us then is whether, assuming that Judge Hale's order was erroneous because of the plaintiff's failure to file a current financial affidavit as required by Practice Book, 1978, § 463, that issue could be raised in a motion for modification rather than by appeal.
Judgments ordering periodic alimony or support are subject to modification upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances of either party. General Statutes § 46b-86. Not only must there by a showing of changed circumstances but it must also appear that these circumstances were not contemplated by the parties at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cersosimo v. Cersosimo
... ... See Benson v. Benson, 187 Conn. 380, 383n, 446 A.2d 796 (1982); Theonnes v. Theonnes, 181 ... Page 1036 ... Conn. 111, 114, 434 A.2d 343 (1980). "[A] broad range of circumstances is relevant in deciding whether a ... ...
-
Darak v. Darak
... ... Bilosz, 184 Conn. 90, 93, 441 A.2d 59 (1981); Noce v. Noce, 181 Conn. 145, 147, 434 A.2d 345 (1980); Theonnes v. Theonnes, 181 Conn. 111, 113, ... Page 151 ... 434 A.2d 343 (1980); Bunche v. Bunche, 180 Conn. 285, 290, 429 A.2d 874 (1980); Cummock v ... ...
-
Borkowski v. Borkowski
...modified by the trial court "upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party." See Theonnes v. Theonnes, 181 Conn. 111, 113-14, 434 A.2d 343 (1980). Under that statutory provision, the party seeking the modification bears the burden of demonstrating that such a c......
-
Madigan v. Madigan
...as well as substantive rights implicated by the trial court's order. See General Statutes § 46b-56; cf. Theonnes v. Theonnes, 181 Conn. 111, 114, 434 A.2d 343 (1980). Finally, a temporary custody order may have a significant impact on a subsequent permanent custody decision. Especially if b......
-
1995 and 1996 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...307 (1981). Only in cases of fraud can a modification be based on an increase in the value of assets. See e.g., Theonnes v. Theonnes, 181 Conn. 111, 114, 434 A.2d 343 (1980); Casanova v. Casanova, 166 Conn. 304, 305, 348 A.2d 668 (1974).* Id. at 234. Hardsity,Theonnes and Casanova do not co......
-
Survey of 1991 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...and his assets were five times as valuable. Id. at 257. 39. 25 Conn. A p. at 234. The Court cited Theonnes v. Theonnes, 181 Conn. 11, 114, 434 A.2d 343 Casanova v. Casanova, 166 Conn. 304 305, 348 A.2d 668 (1974). Those cases do not stand for that proposition. Theonnes held that a motion to......
-
Survey of 1994 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...since the time of that order, not the time of the original decree, is a prerequisite to modification); see also Theonnes v. Theonnes, 181 Conn. 111, 14 31. Id. at 746. 32. Id. at 742. Contrary to the Court's assertion, testimony that the ex-husband's violence cause~ the ex-wife's injury bef......