Bishop v. Freitas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MICHELE BISHOP v. MICHAEL FREITAS (AC 23583) Schaller, Dranginis and DiPentima, Js. Submitted on briefs November 21, 2003 officially released January 6, 2004 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Levine, J.; Caruso, J.) Steven H. St. Clair filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this paternity action, the plaintiff mother, Michele Bishop, appeals from the trial court s findings and order concerning her motion to modify child support. We dismiss the appeal sua sponte for lack of a final judgment. The following facts are relevant to the plaintiff s appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant, Michael Freitas, are the parents of a child born on May 4, 1994. In early 1997, the plaintiff commenced an action to adjudicate paternity, custody and child support. The court rendered judgment shortly thereafter pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. On January 30, 2001, the plaintiff filed a motion to open the judgment to modify child support. Although we can find no order in the record that the court granted the plaintiff s motion to open the judgment, the court ordered discovery and held a hearing with respect to the modification of child support. The court rendered its findings in that regard and ordered the parties to submit calculations for child support for the calendar years 2000 and 2001 on the basis of its finding. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly calculated the defendant s gross income pursuant to his subchapter S tax return for the purposes of determining child support. Appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from judgments that are final. Solomon v. Keiser, 212 Conn. 741, 745, 562 A.2d 524 (1989). Although the court made findings with respect to child support, it has not opened the judgment and rendered an order concerning the amount of support the defendant shall pay. The plaintiff s appeal therefore is from an interlocutory order determining the defendant s income to be used to calculate child support. An otherwise interlocutory order is appealable in two circumstances: (1) where the order or action terminates a separate and distinct proceeding, or (2) where the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them. State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). The court s order determining the defendant s income does not meet either prong of Curcio; in fact, the court anticipated further proceedings by ordering the parties to submit to it child support calculations for the years 2000 and 2001. The appeal has not been taken from a final judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
