Legal Opinion
Kremenitzer v. Kremenitzer
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided January 20, 2004No. AC 23677PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DUPONT, J.
The defendant, Martin W. Kremenitzer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court that granted the motion filed by the plaintiff, Janet P. Kremenitzer, to correct a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).1 The defendant claims that the court incorrectly granted the plaintiffs postjudgment motion to correct the QDRO by valuing his 401 (k) plan as of the date of the dissolution of the marriage of the parties rather than as of the “last valuation date prior to the date distribution is to occur,” as provided in the QDRO. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Lopinto v. HainesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Issler v. IsslerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Sunbury v. SunburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Jucker v. JuckerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Wendt v. WendtConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Blaine v. BlaineNebraska Supreme Court · 2008
- Santana v. City of HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Breslin v. SynnottSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
- Cushman v. CushmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Connecticut Properties Tri-Town Plaza, LLC v. Seymour Cinema, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.