as defined by our dissolution statutes did not occur until
after the breakdown of the marriage. Although adultery
was not pleaded as the grounds for dissolution in this case,
the causes for the breakdown of the marriage are properly
considered by courts in the context of an allegation and
finding of irretrievable breakdown and may be considered
in the courts’ equitable division of marital assets.
Therefore, in determining the causes of the breakdown of a
marriage, the court is not limited to proof by a
preponderance of evidence of the statutory causes of
action for dissolution, enumerated in General Statutes §
46b-40, such as proof of sexual intercourse.”
• Turgeon v. Turgeon, 190 Conn. 269, 278, 460 A.2d 1260
(1983). “Adultery as a ground for dissolution under
General Statutes § 46b-40 requires proof that the other
spouse has engaged in extramarital sexual relations.
Brodsky v. Brodsky, 153 Conn. 299, 300, 216 A.2d 180
(1966). Although, because of their clandestine nature,
adulterous acts are usually proved by circumstantial
evidence; Zeiner v. Zeiner, 120 Conn. 161, 165, 179 A.
644 (1935); the circumstances must be such as to lead the
guarded discretion of a reasonable and just person to the
conclusion of guilt. Brodsky v. Brodsky, supra,
301; Zeiner v. Zeiner, supra; Neff v. Neff, 96 Conn. 273,
275, 114 A. 126 (1921). The adulterous relationship must
be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
Brodsky v. Brodsky, supra, 301. ‘[I]n weighing the
evidence of adultery, the court should exercise great care
to see that it is not imposed upon through the intense
interest of the parties to color the facts; it should not see
evil where the circumstances may reasonably lend
themselves to an innocent interpretation, nor, on the other
hand, should it refuse to reach that conclusion which the
sound and unprejudiced judgment should lead
to.’ Neff v. Neff, supra, 276. Adultery will not be inferred
from circumstantial evidence unless there is both an
opportunity and an adulterous disposition.
Eberhard v. Eberhard, 4 N.J. 535, 73 A.2d 554 (1950); 24
Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation § 393; Clark,
Domestic Relations § 12.3, p. 330. Moreover, the existence
of both the opportunity and the inclination without more
does not necessarily compel a conclusion that adultery has
occurred. See Antonata v. Antonata, 85 Conn. 390, 393,
82 A. 967 (1912).”
• Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 196, 440 A.2d 283
(1982). “There is nothing in the record to support the
defendant’s claim that the court acted punitively in making
its award by focusing on the defendant’s adultery as the
cause of the dissolution.”
• Brodsky v. Brodsky, 153 Conn. 299, 300, 216 A.2d 180
(1966). “Adultery, as a ground for divorce or legal
separation under General Statutes §§ 46-13 or 46-29,
requires proof that the other spouse has engaged in