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

NANCY T. WEINSTEIN v. LUKE A. WEINSTEIN (AC 31681)
Harper, Lavine and McDonald, Js. Argued November 16, 2010--officially released May 10, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Higgins, J. [judgment of dissolution]; AberyWetstone, J. [order modifying child support]; M. Taylor, J. [modification of child support].) Luke A. Weinstein, pro se, the appellant (defendant). Nancy T. Weinstein, pro se, the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

HARPER, J. The defendant, Luke A. Weinstein, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify the amount of child support he pays to the plaintiff, Nancy T. Weinstein. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly determined that the change in the financial circumstances of the parties did not warrant a modification of the child support order. Specifically, the defendant claims that because (1) the plaintiff's net assets increased substantially, (2) the cost of the child's education, which is paid for by the defendant, increased substantially and (3) the child is living with the defendant, the court improperly declined to modify the child support order. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court. The following facts are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The parties' marriage was dissolved on May 12, 1998. Relevant to the current appeal is the child support order entered by the court, Abery-Wetstone, J., on August 23, 2005. Pursuant to that child support order, the defendant is required to pay the plaintiff $52 per week in child support, which was a deviation from the child support guidelines as provided by

Download Weinstein v. Weinstein.pdf

Connecticut Law