Legal Opinion

Hirschfeld v. Machinist

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided September 13, 2011No. AC 31500; AC 31562PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BISHOP, J.

These two appeals arise out of various postjudgment proceedings stemming from the parties’ dissolution of marriage.1 In AC 31500, the plaintiff, Caroline Hirschfeld, claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that swimming pool expenses were “shelter expenses” in accordance with the parties’ separation agreement, (2) entered a postjudgment order dividing assets when it attributed to her expenses associated with a certain automobile, (3) denied her motion for an order regarding the division of assets without affording her a full evidentiary hearing and (4) denied her…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Remillard v. RemillardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  2. Wyszomierski v. SiracusaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  3. Morgera v. ChiappardiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
  4. Sullivan v. BrownConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
  5. Rathblott v. RathblottConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2017
  2. Hirschfeld v. MachinistConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
  3. Budrawich v. BudrawichConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API