If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In the appeal of Mensah v. Mensah, a court denied a former wife's appeal, which argued that her divorce hearing should have been extended because she was unable to attend due to various "health issues." The parties were married for over 20 years, and were divorced in 2011. The husband was an independent contractor with a trucking company. His assets included a pension which amounted to $1656 per month. This benefit totaled to $229,744. After due hearing, the court awarded the wife a share of the husband's pension, as well as the marital home, under the condition that she pay her husband one half of the remaining equity in the home, which totaled to $43,000. No alimony was awarded to either party. The wife appealed the decision, because "significant health issues" allegedly prevented her from attending the original divorce hearings.

The wife's appeal was denied. The court found that, on the original day of trial, the wife made a motion for continuance, which the court granted. The wife was ordered to present medical evidence of her condition. In reply, a receipt for a walk-in clinic was submitted along with the following letter:

I am in receipt of the order dated September 15, 2014. I will not be able to be present on the continued trial scheduled for today due to a medical condition that requires attention. On September 14, I visited a walk-in clinic and discovered a condition that caused me to seek further medical attention on September 15. . . . Efforts to resolve this medical issue are continuing. . . . I respectfully decline to place my health at further risk and renew my motion to reschedule the trial of this matter.

The appellate court found that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying an additional continuance for the wife. The information provided by the wife was not a significant basis for the court to grant a continuance. Specifically, the court reasoned that: "(1) the September 15, 2014 motion was not timely because it had not been received by the court until ten o’clock on the morning the trial was set to begin; (2) the case already had been substantially delayed and that another continuance would set the date back ‘‘at least another six to seven months, if not longer’’; (3) the case was a 2010 dissolution action, and the court ‘‘has gone . . . to extraordinary measures . . . in an attempt to . . . resolve the financial issues that these parties have, including at least four status conferences, a continuance of a trial, and the appointment of a special master for discovery . . . in an attempt to resolve the ongoing discovery issues’’; (4) Miller did not provide ‘‘enough information to say whatever her medical condition may or may not be’’; (5) the court had already granted a continuance in February, 2014; (6) Miller had filed a motion for a continuance the week prior, on September 9, 2014, and it had been denied; and (7) Miller had not complied with the standing orders of the court by not providing the pro- posed orders, witness lists, ‘‘or any other information that’s required under the court’s standing order.’’

The wife also appealed financial decisions made by the court. This appeal was also denied. There was no deficiency in the evidence offered that made any such issue reviewable by the appellate court. In law, a trial court is granted a substantial degree of deference in their finding of fact. On appeal, a court must find credible evidence to contradict the reasoning of the original court's decision. In light of all evidence offered, there was no such contradiction at play.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source- https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP167/167AP380.pdf