Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 46b — FAMILY LAW · Chapter 815 — Court Proceedings in Family Relations Matters
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-8 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 51-341). Motion for modification of support order combined with motion for contempt

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 46b-8 is repealed, effective October 1, 2013.

(P.A. 73-308; P.A. 13-213, S. 6.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1983–2019 · leading case: Bryant v. Bryant, 637 A.2d 1111 (Conn. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bryant v. Bryant, 637 A.2d 1111 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 6× “6 The plaintiff bases his claim on General Statutes § 46b-8, which provides: “Whenever a motion for modification of an order for support and alimony is made to the superior court by a moving party against *639 whom a motion for contempt for noncompliance with such order is…”
LaBow v. LaBow, 537 A.2d 157 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 46b-8 provides: “motion for modification of support order combined with motion for contempt.”
Avella v. Avella, 666 A.2d 822 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 6× “Section 46b-8 provides that “[w]henever a motion for modification of an order for support and alimony is made to the superior court by a moving party against whom a motion for contempt for noncompliance with such order is pending, the court shall accept such motion and hear both…”
Spencer v. Spencer, 173 A.3d 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “Because, however, living with another person without financial benefit did not establish sufficient reason to refashion an award of alimony under General Statutes § 46b-8 [2], the legislature imposed the additional requirement that the party making alimony payments prove that…”
Bieluch v. Bieluch, 509 A.2d 8 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “The defendant’s next claim, that the trial court was required to consider the motion for modification jointly with the motion for contempt finds support neither in the statute; General Statutes § 46b-8; nor in the record, which contains no information about the date of the…”
Greenwood v. Greenwood, 464 A.2d 771 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 2× “By virtue of General Statutes § 46b-8 and Practice Book § 464 (a), a trial court is authorized to grant the affirmative relief of modifying an order for support and alimony to one who is in contempt of such an order.”
Dep't of Health Servs. v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Mason, 503 A.2d 1151 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “*487 The determinative question in this case is the scope of the trial court’s authority, in contempt proceedings, to modify a specific and final remedial order resulting from an administrative finding that the alleged contemnor has engaged in a pattern of discriminatory conduct.”
O'Bymachow v. O'Bymachow, 529 A.2d 747 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 46b-8 (b); Kaplan v. Kaplan, supra.”
Murphy v. Murphy, 188 A.3d 144 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4× “Because, however, living with another person without financial benefit did not establish sufficient reason to refashion an award of alimony under General Statutes § 46b-8 [2], the legislature imposed the additional requirement that the party making alimony payments prove that…”
Boreen v. Boreen, 192 Conn. App. 303 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff contends that the parties intended to incorporate the entirety of § 46b-86 (b) into the separa- tion agreement, including the alternative remedial mea- sures provided for in the statute, when they used the language ‘‘alimony should terminate or be reduced pur-…”
Vincent v. Vincent, 627 A.2d 469 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 5× “Practice Book § 464; General Statutes § 46b-8. Practice Book § 464 provides in pertinent part: “Upon an application for a modification of an award of .”
Bryant v. Bryant, 615 A.2d 1046 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 2× “Was the Appellate Court correct in rejecting the plaintiffs claim that the trial court, under General Statutes § 46b-8, improperly refused to consider the plaintiff’s motion for modification simultaneously with the defendant’s motion for contempt? “2.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.