Case Name: Hranoosh Barclay v. Huntington Barclay
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1991-10-22
Citations: 26 Conn. App. 903
Docket Number: 9535
Parties: Hranoosh Barclay v. Huntington Barclay
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
Hranoosh Barclay v. Huntington Barclay
(9535)
Norcott, Heiman and Cretella, Js.
Argued September 24
decision released October 22, 1991
William C. Bieluch, Jr., for the appellant (defendant).
Victoria deToledo, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph N. Varón, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant appeals following the trial court's action finding him in contempt. The defendant attempts to challenge a portion of the dissolution decree requiring him to execute a will naming the plaintiff and the parties' two minor children as sole beneficiaries of his estate. Our review of the record and counsel's representations at oral argument lead us to conclude that the trial court in the contempt proceeding, in fact, imposed no contempt order relating to the will. Since a contempt order is the vehicle by which this appeal comes to us, it is clear that, there being no contempt order on the issue before us, there can be no appeal on that issue.
The appeal is dismissed.