Opinion
(7285)
Argued June 20, 1989
Decision released July 13, 1989
Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield, where the court, Dranginis, J., granted the plaintiffs motion for certain pendente lite orders, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Walter D. Zitzkat, pro se, the appellant (defendant).
Carlo Forzani, Bridget G. Jenkins and Maureen E. Donahue, filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).
The defendant in this action for dissolution of marriage has appealed from a pendente lite order of the trial court.
Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, and just prior to oral argument in this court, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a separation agreement. That agreement was incorporated into a final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties.
"Pendente lite orders necessarily cease to exist once a final judgment in the dispute has been rendered because their purpose is extinguished at that time." Connolly v. Connolly, 191 Conn. 468, 480, 464 A.2d 837 (1983). Pendente lite orders do not survive the rendition of judgment. See Tobey v. Tobey, 165 Conn. 742, 745, 345 A.2d 21 (1974). The judgment of dissolution "disposed with finality of all interlocutory orders." Saunders v. Saunders, 140 Conn. 140, 146, 98 A.2d 815 (1953); see also Yontef v. Yontef 185 Conn. 275, 291, 440 A.2d 899 (1981); Caracansi v. Caracansi, 4 Conn. App. 645, 652, 496 A.2d 225, cert. denied, 197 Conn. 805, 499 A.2d 56 (1985).
Accordingly, because this case has gone to final judgment, the pendente lite order has ceased to exist, thereby rendering this appeal moot.