Legal Opinion

Sachs v. Sachs

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided October 10, 2000No. AC 18815; AC 19255PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SPEAR, J.

These two appeals arise from a marriage dissolution action. In appeal No. 18815 (pension appeal), the defendant, Joel Sachs, claims that the trial court improperly construed the property award provisions of the parties’ dissolution agreement to allow the plaintiff, Sandra Sachs, one third of the defendant’s future pension benefits that are attributable solely to the defendant’s work after the date of the dissolution. The challenged future pension benefits are one third of all postdissolution deposits made to the defendant’s retirement plans and the earnings thereon. In appeal…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Weiman v. WeimanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  3. Koizim v. KoizimSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  4. Amodio v. AmodioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  5. Issler v. IsslerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Murphy, Inc. v. RemodelingConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  2. Roos v. RoosConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  3. Kunajukr v. KunajukrConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  4. Martin v. MartinConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
  5. Lamacchia v. ChilinskyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API