******************************************************

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.

******************************************************
BETH KELLER v. RICHARD KELLER

(SC 19537)

Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa, Robinson and

Vertefeuille, Js.*

Argued September 22—officially released October 25, 2016

Brendon P. Levesque, with whom was Karen L.

Dowd, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Steven R. Dembo, with whom were Caitlin E. Kozloski and, on the brief, P. Jo Anne Burgh, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. In the course of this protracted marital

dissolution action between the plaintiff, Beth Keller,

and the defendant, Richard Keller, the trial court

entered an order of contempt against the plaintiff on

the ground that she had failed to provide the defendant

with her new address after she moved to another residence with the parties’ three minor children, in violation

of the automatic orders under Practice Book § 25-5 (a)

(2)1 and a court order containing the parties’ parenting

agreement. The plaintiff appealed from the contempt

order to the Appellate Court, claiming that neither

authority literally applied to the facts of the present

case. Keller v. Keller, 158 Conn. App. 538, 547, 119 A.3d

1213 (2015). Specifically, the plaintiff contended that:

(1) § 25-5 (a) (2) was inapplicable because its notice

requirement is limited to a move from the marital home,

not subsequent changes of residence; and (2) the defendant’s actual knowledge of the location of her current

residence satisfied the notice requirements of the court

order. Id., 546–47. Following the Appellate Court’s judgment affirming the contempt order; id., 548; the plaintiff

appealed to this court upon our grant of certification.

Keller v. Keller, 319 Conn. 906, 122 A.3d 638 (2015).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties,

we have determined that the appeal in this case should

be dismissed on the ground that certification was

improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

* This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this

court consisting of Justices Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa,

Robinson and Vertefeuille. Although Justices Espinosa and Robinson were

not present at oral argument, they have read the briefs and appendices,

and have listened to a recording of oral argument prior to participating in

this decision.

1 Practice Book § 25-5 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘In all cases involving

a child or children, whether or not the parties are married or in a civil union

. . . (2) A party vacating the family residence shall notify the other party

or the other party’s attorney, in writing, within forty-eight hours of such

move, of an address where the relocated party can receive communication.

This provision shall not apply if and to the extent there is a prior, contradictory order of a judicial authority. . . .’’