KATIE N. CONROY
AMMAR A. IDLIBI
February 20, 2018
for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief,
brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New
Britain and tried to the court, Carbonneau, J.;
judgment dissolving the marriage and granting certain other
relief, from which the defendant appealed to this court;
thereafter, the court, Carbonneau, J., denied the
defendant's motion for modification of alimony;
subsequently, the court, Carbonneau, J., denied the
plaintiff's motion for contempt. Dismissed in
Al Ahmad, for the appellant (defendant).
Jeremiah Ollennu, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Alvord, Keller and Bishop, Js.
defendant, Ammar A. Idlibi, appeals from the judgment of the
trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Katie
N. Conroy. The defendant claims that the court erred (1) by
finding that neither party bore greater responsibility for
the breakdown of the marriage and (2) in making financial
awards that were favorable to the plaintiff. We affirm the
judgment of the court.
court found the following facts. In 2005, the plaintiff, when
she was eighteen years old and while living in California,
began to communicate with the defendant over the internet.
The plaintiff was estranged from her mother at the time and
living with her grandmother. At first, the plaintiff and the
defendant discussed the plaintiff's interest in the
defendant's faith, Islam. The topic of conversation
quickly shifted from the defendant's faith to marriage.
‘‘About three weeks after meeting online, [the]
defendant flew to California, picked up [the] plaintiff,
brought her to Connecticut and they married.''
the plaintiff and the defendant were happily married. The
defendant, a dentist, opened his own practice in 2007. His
high income level from this practice enabled the parties to
enjoy a lavish lifestyle. They had three children during the
initial marital bliss, ‘‘[t]he seeds of this
dissolution were sown at the very time the relationship
began.'' The plaintiff alleged that the defendant
exerted overbearing control over many aspects of her life and
that he physically assaulted her. The defendant harbored
suspicions that the plaintiff was unfaithful during the
marriage. The defendant's dental practice also went
through down periods, placing financial strain upon them and
forcing the plaintiff to loan the business the total balance
of an education fund, about $132, 000, left to her by her
plaintiff commenced this proceeding on May 19, 2015, seeking
to dissolve her ten year marriage to the defendant. Following
a trial, the court, on August 15, 2016, rendered a judgment
of dissolution, finding that the marriage had broken down
irretrievably. The court did not allocate fault for the
breakdown of the marriage. Pursuant to the dissolution
decree, the court made certain orders for the payment of
alimony and the distribution of property.
defendant first claims that the court should have found that
the plaintiff was at fault for the breakdown of the