Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

EDWARD BOCK v. LUCILLE BOCK (AC 32151)
Gruendel, Beach and Bear, Js. Submitted on briefs October 15, 2010--officially released March 29, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Tierney, J. [dissolution judgment]; Shay, J. [motions for modification and for contempt].) Lucille Bock, pro se, the appellant (defendant), filed a brief. Thomas M. Shanley filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

BEACH, J. The defendant, Lucille Bock, appeals from the dismissal of her postjudgment motion for contempt in which she alleged that the plaintiff, Edward Bock, had failed to provide funds in accordance with postmajority educational support agreements. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in dismissing the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the defendant's appeal. On August 15, 2006, the court rendered judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties.1 The judgment stated that ``[t]he court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to General Statutes

Download Bock v. Bock.pdf

Connecticut Law