16 Conn. App. 513 - Lesser v. Lesser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`A discharge . . . does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt-(5) to a . . . former spouse . . . for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of such spouse . . . in connection with a . . . divorce decree. . . .' In contrast, obligations assumed as part of property settlements are discharged. `If the debtor has assumed an obligation of the debtor's spouse to a third party in connection with a . . . divorce proceeding, such debt is dischargeable to the extent that [it] is not actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support of debtor's spouse . . . .' 124 Cong., Rec. H 11,095-96 (9/28/78); S 17, 412-13 (10/6/78).'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Yankowski v. Yankowski, No. 29 71 64 (Mar. 10, 1995) · 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 4377 - Vincent v. Vincent, No. 26 75 25 (May 3, 1991)

2. “(1) whether the obligation terminates on the death or remarriage of the debtor's spouse; (2) whether the payments appear to balance disparate income; (3) whether the payments are made to a third party or the exspouse; (4) whether the obligation terminates at the end of a specified event (i.e. children are out of school, debt is satisfied, etc.); and (5) what was the intent of the parties.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roesler v. Roesler, No. Fa98-0548737s (Dec. 13, 2001) · Yankowski v. Yankowski, No. 29 71 64 (Mar. 10, 1995)

3. “On December 17, 1984, the defendant, by her counsel, argued before Judge Vasington of the Superior Court that the debt to the credit union was a nonmodifiable property settlement. The defendant has, for purposes of this action, recharacterized this same debt as child support in order to argue its nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(5). The defendant cannot benefit from both arguments. Defendant's counsel informed the court: `There was no payment of alimony. There was no periodic order. What we're talking about was an obligation on the part of the plaintiff husband to save harmless the wife from a loan to the New London Security Federal Credit Union. That is the same as — it would be treated as a lump sum award. This is not a periodic award. It is part of the property settlement, and, therefore, is nonmodifiable by the court.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Yankowski v. Yankowski, No. 29 71 64 (Mar. 10, 1995)