JAY B. PACKARD
REBECCA M. PACKARD
March 14, 2018
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.
Rebecca M. Packard, self-represented, the appellant
Packard, self-represented, the appellee (plaintiff), filed a
DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Beach, Js.
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. Additionally, she
asserts state and federal constitutional violations. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
defendant, in her lengthy and detailed brief, presents no
legal analysis and cites virtually no case law.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. ‘‘[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.
judgment is affirmed.
 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.
 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 ...