Bjork v. Bjork, No. Fa92 0123701 S (Feb. 1, 1994)
Opinion of the Court
The problem arises because the specific security in question CT Page 1042 was not named in the prepared agreement, and the parties differ as to whether they agreed that it was to be transferred by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The defendant's inconsistent positions on the issue of the transfer of the Tarovit stock makes it difficult for the court to give full credence to his testimony. See Exhibits #3 and #5. ("This transfer will be in compliance with our separation agreement").
The defendant is not found to be in contempt. However, he is ordered to promptly transfer 15,000 shares of Tarovit Industries to the account of the plaintiff.
So Ordered.
NOVACK, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.