The function of the Appellate Court, as it explained in the 2000 decision in Hopfer v. Hopfer, "is not to retry the facts of the case, substitute [its] judgment for that of the trial court, or articulate or clarify the trial court's decision." The defendant, Andrew Foley, appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying three motions for contempt that he filed against the plaintiff, Joanne Foley, his former wife. The defendant requested that the Appellate Court review the trial court's decisions anew and issue orders  to the plaintiff, such as to refinance the former marital home in her own name, to end certain child care bills and to stop therapy sessions for one of the parties' children. Essentially the defendant was asking the Appellate Court to retry the facts and issue new order which it is unable to do. Additionally, even if the defendant had sought review of the trial court's orders instead of a de novo hearing, the panel would decline to review his claims due to inadequate briefing. The defendant failed to set forth a standard of review for any of his claims or to cite relevant authority in support of his position.

VIEW FULL CASE