DocketNumber: No. 093031
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 605
Judges: GAFFNEY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 1/9/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In the view of the court the above conclusion is not affected by the plaintiff's assertion during oral argument that he is not obligated, and does not intend, to make any installment payment on the note. He argues that any such payment was intended to be considered as periodic alimony, as to which he is relieved of further responsibility by virtue of the defendant's admitted cohabitation. The plaintiff relies on paragraph G.(4)(3) of the Agreement, which the defendant argues has no application to paragraph C.(4).
The defendant's motion is at this time premature and should be considered, if at all, upon the accrual of a justiciable controversy. See State v. Nardini,
GAFFNEY JUDGE CT Page 606