Bersani v. Bersani
Supreme Court of Connecticut
565 A.2d 1368 (1989)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Amparo Bersani (plaintiff) filed a petition for divorce from her husband, Michael Bersani (defendant). Prior to a trial on the divorce petition, the trial court awarded temporary custody of the Bersanis’ two children to Amparo and visitation rights to Michael. Pursuant to an agreement between the Bersanis, Amparo was required to give Michael 30 days' written notice of her intent to leave the country. Later, Amparo filed a motion seeking an order allowing her to return to Spain with the children, pending a final hearing on the divorce petition. The trial court denied Amparo’s motion. Later, Michael learned that Amparo had moved out of her residence with the children and had not informed him where she was taking them. Amparo’s attorney declined to inform Michael of Amparo’s whereabouts, citing attorney-client privilege. Michael filed a motion to compel the attorney to reveal the information. The trial court stayed a decision on Michael’s motion and found Amparo in willful contempt of a court order, ordered Amparo to return to Connecticut, and awarded Michael temporary custody of the children. A week later, the trial court dissolved the marriage between the Bersanis and awarded custody of the children to Michael. Michael filed a motion to compel the attorney to reveal the whereabouts of Amparo and the children.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freedman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
