The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Connecticut Law Journal - April 30, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3470

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 44, for April 30, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 331: Connecticut Reports (Pages 524 - 561)
  • Volume 331: Orders (Pages 919 - 922)
  • Volume 331: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 189: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 477 - 608)
  • Volume 189: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 906)
  • Volume 189: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3467

AC41039 - Leon v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that (1) that conduct violated his right to client autonomy under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) the habeas court improperly determined that the petitioner had not been denied the effective assistance of counsel by that conduct. We conclude that the former was not pleaded or decided by the habeas court and therefore is not properly before this court. With respect to the latter, the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails, as he did not establish prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC40984 - Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that his prior habeas attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to allege that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing (1) to consult with a forensic pathologist to reconstruct the crime scene, and (2) to object to the admission into evidence of certain witness statements. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3468

AC41129 - Malpeso v. Malpeso ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the plaintiff, Charlotte Malpeso, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered on remand from this court, granting motions to modify filed by the defendant, Pasquale Malpeso, and entering modified financial orders. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that: (1) the court erred in granting the defendant's motion to modify filed on January 25, 2012, because the court (a) improperly determined that the defendant's payment of the college expenses of the parties' children constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification of alimony and (b) failed to consider the totality of the parties' respective financial circumstances; (2) the court erred in granting the defendant's motion to modify filed on October 10, 2014, as amended, because the court (a) made a clearly erroneous factual finding regarding the defendant's health and engaged in speculation by considering the defendant's risk of developing future medical conditions, and (b) failed to consider the totality of the parties' respective financial circumstances; and (3) the court erred in modifying alimony retroactively. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40622, AC40765 - Winthrop v. Winthrop ("The defendant, Matthew Winthrop, appeals, and the plaintiff, Lori K. Winthrop, cross appeals, from the order of the trial court denying the plaintiff's postjudgment motion for contempt. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly found that his 'earned income,' for the purpose of calculating the amount of additional alimony that he owed the plaintiff in 2016, was the amount shown on his W-2 form. The plaintiff contends in her cross appeal that, although the court correctly determined that the defendant's earned income was the figure provided on his W-2 form, it failed to calculate the additional alimony owed in 2016 in accordance with the parties' separation agreement (agreement). We affirm the judgment as to the defendant's appeal and, as to the plaintiff's cross appeal, we reverse the judgment only with respect to the court's calculation of the alimony amount owed by the defendant in 2016.")

AC41352 - Merkel v. Hill ("The defendant, Marlene Baltimore Hill, appeals from the postjudgment order of the trial court modifying the existing orders governing the parental access plan and the custody rights of the self-represented plaintiff, Gordon Merkel, with respect to the parties' minor child. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court's modification of the existing custody order violated her right to procedural due process under the United States constitution, and that the court abused its discretion by adopting the recommendations contained in a stale family relations report to modify both the existing custody and parental access plan orders. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3464

AC41407 - Seale v. GeoQuest, Inc. (Negligence; "The plaintiff, Daniel C. Seale, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a bench trial, rendered in favor of the defendant, GeoQuest, Inc. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court properly determined that the defendant did not violate the standard of care. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3463

AC40325 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Grogins ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants, David Grogins, executor of the estate of Anna S. Grogins, and David Grogins and Malcolm L. Grogins, trustees of the Susan Grogins Trust, appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust. On appeal, the defendants argue that the court abused its discretion in denying their motion to open because the court improperly applied the procedural requirements set forth in General Statutes § 52-212 and, in so doing, erroneously found that there was no good cause to open the judgment of strict foreclosure. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")