Case ID: a3d_148-2/html/0255-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jacqueline O. Juma v. Tom M. Aomo
    AC 37880
    Appellate Court of Connecticut.
    Argued September 7, 2016 Officially released October 11, 2016
    Tom M. Aomo, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
    Lavine, Mullins and Mihalakos, Js.
   PER CURIAM.

The self-represented defendant, Tom M. Aomo, appeals from the postdissolution judgment of the trial court, reinstating the financial orders issued at the time of dissolution. The trial court, Olear, J. , dissolved the marriage of the defendant and the self-represented plaintiff, Jacqueline O. Juma, on July 1, 2011, and issued financial orders with respect to the defendant's child support and alimony obligations. See Juma v. Aomo , 143 Conn.App. 51, 54, 68 A.3d 148 (2013). The defendant subsequently became unemployed, and the parties agreed that his financial obligations should be modified downward. On November 5, 2013, the court, Ficeto, J. , revised its financial orders downward and entered certain orders regarding the arrearage the defendant owed the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant found new employment, and, on December 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to modify child support and alimony asking the trial court to reinstate its original financial orders in the judgment of dissolution. Following a hearing, Judge Ficeto granted the plaintiff's motion to modify child support and alimony, reinstating the defendant's financial obligations pursuant to the judgment of dissolution. On the basis of our thorough review of the record, and after considering the record and the defendant's brief and argument, we conclude that there is no error. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      
      The defendant also claims that the court, Ficeto, J. , improperly denied his motion for contempt.
     
      
      The plaintiff filed a statement in lieu of brief and did not appear at oral argument. We therefore have decided the appeal on the basis of the record and the defendant's brief and oral argument. See, e.g., Goss v. Bella Notte of West Hartford, Inc. , 99 Conn.App. 449, 450, 915 A.2d 881 (2007).