Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Packard v. Packard

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

April 24, 2018

JAY B. PACKARD
v.
REBECCA M. PACKARD

          Argued March 14, 2018

         Procedural History

         Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, and referred to the Regional Family Trial Docket at Middletown, where the matter was tried to the court, Albis, J.; judgment dissolving the marriage and granting certain other relief, from which the defendant appealed to this court; thereafter, the court, Albis, J., issued certain orders, and the defendant filed an amended appeal; subsequently, the court, Albis, J., issued certain orders, and the defendant filed an amended appeal; thereafter, the court, Albis, J., issued certain orders, and the defendant filed an amended appeal. Affirmed.

          Rebecca M. Packard, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

          Jay B. Packard, self-represented, the appellee (plaintiff), filed a brief.

          DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Beach, Js.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         The defendant, Rebecca M. Packard, appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage with the plaintiff, Jay B. Packard. This appeal has been amended three times, challenging orders entered after judgment. Specifically, the defendant (1) claims that as to the April 7, 2017 judgment, the findings, conclusions and orders are erroneous; (2) challenges the July 28, 2017 order regarding renovations to the marital home; (3) challenges the August 18, 2017 order requiring her to sign a release of medical information to the guardian ad litem; and (4) challenges the October 6, 2017 orders regarding facilitating the sale of the marital home.[1] Additionally, she asserts state and federal constitutional violations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         The defendant, in her lengthy and detailed brief, presents no legal analysis and cites virtually no case law.[2]A narrative account of the demise of the parties' relationship and the effect of various orders on the defendant, however compelling, does not suffice as an adequate brief under our procedural law.[3] ‘‘[F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. . . . The parties may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688, 724, 138 A.3d 868 (2016); see also Getty Properties Corp. v. ATKR, LLC, 315 Conn. 387, 413, 107 A.3d 931 (2015) (claim inadequately briefed when appellants undertook ‘‘no analysis or application of the law to the facts of [the] case''); Taylor v. Mucci, 288 Conn. 379, 383 n.4, 952 A.2d 776 (2008) (analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, required to avoid abandoning issue by failing to brief issue properly; where claim receives only cursory attention without substantive discussion or citation of authorities, it is deemed abandoned). In this matter, we are unable to determine the legal bases for the claims and relief that the defendant seeks. As a result of the defendant's inadequate brief, we decline to address the claims raised therein.

         The judgment is affirmed.

---------

Notes:

[1] The defendant has filed additional amended appeals that were severed from this appeal and assigned a separate docket number. See Packard v. Packard, AC 41176.

[2] The defendant's brief, on page 38, footnote 67, cited our decision in Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn.App. 50, 732 A.2d 808 (1999), to support the following statement: ‘‘Unfortunately, although caselaw offers some protection of being held in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.