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

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.

******************************************************
TURI ROSTAD v. LEON HIRSCH

(SC 19315)

Rogers, C. J., and Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald and Espinosa, Js.

Argued May 21—officially released June 23, 2015

Daniel P. Scholfield, with whom, on the brief, were

Hugh F. Keefe, Benjamin D. Gettinger and Rosalie D.

Morgan, for the appellant-appellee (defendant).

Debra C. Ruel, with whom was James M. Ruel, for

the appellee-appellant (plaintiff).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Turi Rostad, and the

defendant, Leon Hirsch, both appealed to the Appellate

Court from the judgment of the trial court in the plaintiff’s paternity action against the defendant seeking an

order of support and maintenance for her minor son,

attorney’s fees, statutory interest, past due child support and past due ‘‘special child support.’’ In his appeal,

the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly

had awarded: (1) past due child support to the plaintiff

for the period from May 1, 2008 to June 1, 2009; (2)

interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a on the

trial court’s January 29, 2010 pendente lite award of

attorney’s fees to the plaintiff; and (3) additional attorney’s fees to the plaintiff’s counsel. In her cross appeal,

the plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly had:

(1) failed to award past due child support for the period

from May 15, 2005 to April 30, 2008; (2) failed to award

past due ‘‘special child support’’ underthe child support

and arrearage guidelines set forth in § 46b-215a-1 et seq.

of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies; and

(3) awarded only $200 in attorney’s fees to two of her

attorneys. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment

of the trial court. Rostad v. Hirsch, 148 Conn. App.

441, 470, 85 A.3d 1212 (2014). We then granted the

defendant’s petition for certification to appeal on the

following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly

affirm the trial court’s award of ‘past due’ child support

for the period of May 1, 2008 to June 1, 2009?’’; (2) ‘‘Did

the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s

award of interest under . . . § 37-3a for the period of

time that the trial court’s order of attorney’s fees was

on appeal?’’; and (3) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly

affirm the trial court’s award of $127,552.58 in additional

attorney’s fees?’’ Rostad v. Hirsch, 311 Conn. 948, 91

A.3d 463 (2014). We also granted the plaintiff’s cross

petition to appeal on the following issue: ‘‘Did theAppellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s decision

denying the plaintiff’s claim for ‘back child support’ in

this paternity action, for the period from May 15, 2005

to April 30, 2008, pursuant to the child support guidelines and Maturo v. Maturo, 296 Conn. 80, 995 A.2d 1

(2010)?’’ Rostad v. Hirsch, 311 Conn. 949, 91 A.3d 463

(2014). After examining the entire record on appeal and

considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties,

we have determined that the appeal and cross appeal

in this case should be dismissed on the ground that

certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed.