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. ******************************************************

ROBIN L. SARGENT v. ROBERT E. SARGENT (AC 31987)
Gruendel, Robinson and Pellegrino, Js. Argued November 15, 2010--officially released January 4, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Solomon, J. [separation judgment]; J. Fischer, J. [dissolution judgment].) John M. Andreini, for the appellant (plaintiff). Robert E. Sargent, pro se, the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

GRUENDEL, J. The plaintiff, Robin L. Sargent, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Robert E. Sargent, and granting the defendant's motion for modification of alimony.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant's motion, given the lack of a sufficient change in circumstances warranting a modification of the defendant's alimony payments. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court. The following facts, as found by the court, and procedural history are relevant to the disposition of the plaintiff's appeal. On June 27, 1993, the parties remarried in Manchester.2 On October 11, 2006, the plaintiff filed a complaint for legal separation, claiming, inter alia, that the parties' marriage had broken down irretrievably. Subsequently, the parties negotiated and executed a separation agreement (agreement) that provided in relevant part: ``[The defendant] shall pay to [the plaintiff] the amount of $250 per week in alimony until [the plaintiff] reaches the age of sixty-two . . . . [The defendant] shall maintain medical insurance for the benefit of the [plaintiff] so long as it is available through his place of employment at reasonable cost. Currently, the medical insurance [for the plaintiff is] at no expense to [the defendant]. Should [the defendant] be required to pay for a portion of his insurance, the parties shall review the alimony obligation and the then current incomes of the parties to determine each [party's] obligation toward the insurance expense.'' (Emphasis added.) On August 24, 2007, the court rendered judgment declaring the parties to be legally separated and incorporated the agreement into its judgment. On March 16, 2009, the defendant filed a motion for modification of alimony and a petition for a decree dissolving the parties' marriage pursuant to General Statutes

Download Sargent v. Sargent.pdf

Connecticut Law