From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coles v. Coles

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Feb 22, 1989
553 A.2d 1169 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)

Opinion

(6400)

Argued January 31, 1989

Decision released February 22, 1989

Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield and tried to the court, Pickett, J.; judgment dissolving the marriage and granting certain other relief, from which the defendant appealed to this court; thereafter, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for contempt and attorney's fees, and the defendant filed an amended appeal. No error.

Joseph T. Coles, pro se, the appellant (defendant).

Judith Dixon, with whom, on the brief, was Marcia Tannenbaum, legal intern, for the appellee (plaintiff).


The defendant appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court dissolving the parties' marriage, distributing their property and allocating their liabilities, and awarding custody of and support for the parties' minor child to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the defendant claims six grounds of error that attack either the factual findings of the court, or its exercise of discretion. We will not retry the case. Pulaski v. Ledwith, 5 Conn. App. 629, 631, 501 A.2d 396 (1985). Our review of the record fails to disclose that the factual findings of the court were clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings, or that the decision was otherwise erroneous in law; Practice Book 4061; or unsupported by the evidence; Branigan v. Cohen, 3 Conn. App. 580, 581, 490 A.2d 1019 (1985). On appeal, rulings involving the court's discretion will be disturbed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of that discretion. Leech v. Rozbicki, 17 Conn. App. 352, 353, 552 A.2d 451 (1989). Our review of the record also indicates that the court acted within its broad discretion.

The defendant, as the appellant, has the burden of showing that there was error in the judgment from which the appeal was taken. Manzin v. United Bank Trust Co., 6 Conn. App. 513, 517, 506 A.2d 169 (1986). After affording the claims of error the appropriate scope of review, we find that the defendant has not met his burden.


Summaries of

Coles v. Coles

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Feb 22, 1989
553 A.2d 1169 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Case details for

Coles v. Coles

Case Details

Full title:BEVERLY A. COLES v. JOSEPH T. COLES

Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: Feb 22, 1989

Citations

553 A.2d 1169 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
553 A.2d 1169

Citing Cases

Strother v. Strother

As we have often stated, we will not retry the case. Coles v. Coles, 17 Conn. App. 831, 832, 553 A.2d 1169…

Pietra v. American Factors, Inc.

As we have often stated, we will not retry the case. Coles v. Coles, 17 Conn. App. 831, 832, 553 A.2d 1169…