Michaelis v. Michaelis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** JUDY MICHAELIS v. LAWRENCE MICHAELIS (AC 23450) Lavery, C. J., and Bishop and Peters, Js. Argued December 2, 2003 officially released February 24, 2004 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Shay, J.) Elaine Rubinson, for the appellant (defendant). Daniel J. Krisch, with whom were Christopher Mattei, legal intern, and, on the brief, Wesley W. Horton and Elizabeth Eisenmann, legal intern, for the appellee (plaintiff). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Lawrence Michaelis, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Judy Michaelis. The defendant claims that he was prejudiced by the court s financial orders in that the court failed to value certain financial assets of the parties adequately. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record discloses the following facts and procedural history. In a memorandum of decision filed August 20, 2002, the court rendered judgment dissolving the parties fourteen year marriage and entered orders regarding the division of the parties real and personal property, periodic alimony for the plaintiff, and the custody, care and maintenance of the parties two minor children. In fashioning the orders, the court, inter alia, ascribed an earning capacity to the plaintiff of at least $45,000 per year, attributed a net income to the defendant of $100,000 per year, found that a certain account held approximately $1000, and stated that the plaintiff had deposited the proceeds from the sale of her sole real property owned at the time of the marriage, amounting to approximately $59,000, to a mutual fund, a substantial portion of which was subsequently used for a down payment on the parties Westport home. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court incorrectly determined that (1) the plaintiff had a gross annual earning capacity of $45,000, (2) he had gross annual earnings of approximately $208,000 and net earnings of $100,000, (3) the plaintiff had $1000 rather than $2000 in a particular financial account, and (4) the plaintiff had received $60,000 rather than $52,000 from the sale of real property she had owned and sold prior to the parties purchase of the marital home. The defendant s claims implicate two standards of review. To the extent the defendant assails the court s factual findings, our function is to determine whether the court s findings were clearly erroneous. E.g., Parley v. Parley, 72 Conn. App. 742, 750, 807 A.2d 982 (2002). Additionally, to the extent that the defendant claims that the court s orders flowing from its findings were improper, we review those orders to determine whether the court abused its discretion. E.g., id., 752. On the basis of our review of the record, we find no support for the defendant s claim that the court s factual findings were incorrect. In each instance, the record reveals an evidentiary basis from which the court could have correctly made its factual determinations. Similarly, the court s comprehensive and well reasoned memorandum of decision reflects that the court properly and adequately considered all relevant criteria in fashioning its orders. We conclude that the court s orders did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The defendant s claims must therefore fail. The judgment is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
