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. ****************************************************** ANNA H. HATHAWAY v. STEPHEN G. HATHAWAY (AC 20480)
Lavery, C. J., and Schaller and Cretella, Js. Argued October 26--officially released November 21, 2000 Counsel

Renee Marie Houle, with whom, on the brief, was C. George Kanabis, for the appellant (defendant). Raymond L. Baribeault, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Jeffrey W. Hill, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. This matter involves the dissolution of a fifty-seven year marriage. The defendant has appealed from the judgment of dissolution, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in its financial and property award and in ordering the defendant to pay $10,000 toward the plaintiff's attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. ``The well settled standard of review in domestic relations cases is that this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court has abused its legal discretion or its findings have no reasonable basis in the facts.

. . . As has often been explained, the foundation for this standard is that the trial court is in a clearly advantageous position to assess the personal factors significant to a domestic relations case, such as demeanor and attitude of the parties at the hearing. . . . In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158, 174

Download Hathaway v. Hathaway.pdf

Connecticut Law