Monday, October 31, 2016

Supreme Fraud in Divorce Opinion

Once again, the highest level of our state legal system demonstrates how it cares only about generating revenue for the legal community and NOT actually working to resolve matters that impact residents of our state. Case in point, the October 25, 2016 Supreme Court opinion in Keller v. Keller.

In a Per Curiam opinion (meaning, a court in unanimous agreement), the Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed the appeal which would have reviewed an Appellate Court opinion, upholding findings of contempt against a plaintiff in a dissolution of marriage action. According to the opinion: "After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted."

Note, only after allowing the parties, both of whom were represented by appellate counsel, to expend significant fees pursuing and defending the appeal to the Supreme Court, did that Court then decline to address the merits of the underlying legal issues - ones which are sure to arise again in the future given the ambiguous language in Practice Book Rules established by members of the Judicial Branch.

In the underlying appellate matter, Keller v. Keller, 158 Conn. App. 538 (2015), the Plaintiff, Beth Keller,  "appeals from an order of contempt entered against her by the trial court in the course of the proceedings dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Richard Keller. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding her in contempt for failing to provide the defendant with her address after leaving the family home. The defendant argues that the appeal is moot. We do not agree that the appeal is moot, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court."

Time and again, we see examples at the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and Supreme Court level where individual jurists or panels of jurists side step resolution of legal issues, enabling - and in fact, practically providing a guarantee that - future litigants to get caught in the same trap with no legal clarification to turn to which could easily short-circuit the issue with much less time and expense. The reason, of course, is that our legal system needs to, first and foremost, ensure future business for itself and the many employees which comprise the criminal enterprise doing business as the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.

We take no particular position on whether the plaintiff was correct in her legal argument or whether she should have indeed provided written notice of her address to the defendant, Mr. Keller, as he asserted in his original motion for contempt against her. You can follow the links above and form your own opinion on that, but it is clear that the legal community is concerned about declining revenues, especially in the family and civil arena, and it is an outright fraud by members of our Supreme Court for failing to do their job and issue an opinion which would clarify, one way or another, the possible ambiguity in existing statutes or rules, which contribute to ongoing conflict. 

1 comment:


  1. Hey,

    You’ve probably heard that good communication is the cornerstone
    of every successful marriage. There’s a reason for that – it’s true.

    Here’s an effective strategy for validating your spouse in every
    conversation. It will instantly strengthen the bond between you both.

    Seriously, this is a game changer that will transform your marriage instantly!

    >> Transform Your Marriage in Minutes <<

    Talk to you soon,

    Ana

    ReplyDelete