Legal Opinion

Hirschfeld v. Machinist

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 28, 2012No. AC 33661PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SCHALLER, J.

The plaintiff, Caroline Hirschfeld, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting her motion for contempt and ordering the defendant, Robert B. Machinist, to pay an additional $36,959 in alimony for the 2007 taxable year and $17,731.97 in attorney’s fees.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly interpreted a provision in the separation agreement and, in doing so, improperly restricted the plaintiffs ability to obtain documents relating to *692the defendant’s earned income. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Remillard v. RemillardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  2. Oneglia v. OnegliaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hirschfeld v. MachinistConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
  2. Hirschfeld v. MachinistConnecticut Appellate Court · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API