Legal Opinion
Hayward v. Hayward
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 27, 1999No. AC 16496PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*2 Opinion
LAVERY, J.
This appeal, arising from the trial court’s decision modifying its order for periodic child support, returns to this court1 pursuant to our having granted the plaintiffs motion to reargue. The issue now before us is the plaintiffs claim that trial court improperly applied the child support guidelines2 (support guidelines) by permitting the defendant to deduct his entire contribution to the Australian superannuation fund and the value of his employer provided automobile from his gross income. We agree.
The following facts are pertinent to this appeal. The plaintiff, Cameron M.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Borkowski v. BorkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Simmons v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- McPhee v. McPheeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Prial v. PrialConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Azia v. DilasciaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Hartney v. HartneyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- State v. GurrehConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Benedetto v. BenedettoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.