Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Dwight Judy v. Donna Judy
CLARIFICATION OF DECISION
The court tried this matter to completion on February 11, 2014 and announced its decision from the bench. The court inadvertently omitted an assignment of a joint debt of the parties from its ruling. The court on its own motion now clarifies that ruling to address the omission.
“Motions for articulation or clarification, although not specifically described in the rules of practice, are commonly considered by trial courts and are procedurally proper.” Holcomb v. Holcomb, 22 Conn.App. 363, 366 (1990). Clarifications are appropriate when the trial court failed to rule on a matter. Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 232 (2003). It is the proper procedural vehicle to ask the trial judge to rule on an over-looked matter. Wallenta v. Moscowitz, 81 Conn.App. 213, 230, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 909 (2004). Clarifications are not to be used by the trial court to “substitute a new decision [or] to change the reasoning or basis of a prior decision.” Walshon v. Walshon, 42 Conn.App. 651, 655–56 (1996).
Plaintiff credibly testified about three marital debts: $8,000.00 to Beneficial Finance, $7,000.00 owed on a Citibank credit card, and a $1,900.00 income tax obligation for tax years 2010 and 2011. The court finds from the evidence that the debts are not in the nature of support. Plaintiff consulted a bankruptcy attorney to deal with these debts because the creditors placed judgment liens on the marital property. The court notes from the parties' sworn Financial Affidavits that there is little or no equity in this property and that defendant has no significant assets.
“General Statutes § 46b–81 confers broad powers upon the court in the assignment of property, and the allocation of liabilities and debts is a part of the court's broad authority in the assignment of property.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Clark v. Clark, 115 Conn.App. 500, 505, 974 A.2d 33 (2009). The court has considered C.G.S. § 46b–81 and its guiding criteria. The court assigns sole responsibility for the payment of these bills to plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Carbonneau, J.
Carbonneau, John L., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: FA124118681S
Decided: February 19, 2014
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)