Patricia Ann Ewing v. Ronnie Rue Ewing (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE DEFENDANT'S APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATE

On April 1, 2010 the Family Support Magistrate (Strada, William) issued a memorandum of decision on motions filed by the defendant, specifically a Motion to Vacate Garnishment and a Motion to Transfer to the State of Kansas.   Pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b-231(n) the defendant filed a timely appeal from said decision.   Pursuant to said statute on June 15, 2010 the superior court conducted a hearing on said appeal.

The defendant raises three issues on appeal;

1. Whether the Magistrate erred by finding that Connecticut has jurisdiction to issue a garnishment when neither party resides in Connecticut.

2. Whether the Magistrate erred by failing to give full faith and credit to the Kansas Court order that the defendant pay $100.00 per month.

3. Whether the Magistrate erred by refusing to transfer the matter to a Court of proper jurisdiction pursuant to P.B. § 46b-212r.

The standard for appellate review is mandated by statute, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b-231(n)(6)(7).

(6) The appeal shall be conducted by the Superior Court without a jury and shall be confined to the record and such additional evidence as the Superior Court has permitted to be introduced.   The Superior Court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

(7) The Superior Court may affirm the decision of the family support magistrate or remand the case for further proceedings.   The Superior Court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the decision of the family support magistrate is:  (A) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;  (B) in excess of the statutory authority of the family support magistrate;  (C) made upon unlawful procedure;  (D) affected by other error of law;  (E) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record;  or (F) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

The court has reviewed the Transcript of the July 13, 2009 hearing before the Magistrate.   In addition, it has read the Memorandum of Law filed by the defendant.   Finally, the court read the Magistrate's Memorandum of Decision dated April 1, 2010.   Based on the foregoing and applying the statutory criteria, the court finds no error on any issue.   The decision of the Magistrate is affirmed.   The Appeal is dismissed.

THE COURT

SCHOFIELD, J.

Schofield, Marylouise, J.