Wichman v. Wichman
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FREEDMAN, J.
The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify an alimony award. The defendant claims that the trial court (1) acted in an “ultra vires” manner when it denied his motion to modify on the ground that General Statutes § 46b-86 (b) predated the parties’ judgment, (2) improperly determined that cohabitation had to be a specific ground for modification of alimony in light of the express purpose and legislative history concerning § 46b-86 (b) and the facts of this case and (3) improperly determined that it had no jurisdiction to modify the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kaplan v. KaplanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Connolly v. ConnollySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Hopkins v. PacSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Breen v. BreenConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Rau v. RauConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Amodio v. AmodioConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Eckert v. EckertSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Way v. WayConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Wichman v. WichmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998