When The Court’s Decision Is Unacceptable, Consider An Appeal
Attorney Pyetranker is a highly-trained, experienced appellate attorney. He is one of the few litigators in Fairfield County who also handles appeals. He covers all components of the appellate case. He brings and defends against appeals on behalf of clients whom he has represented at trial, as well as clients who had different trial counsel.
Clients request Mr. Pyetranker’s representation if they believe the court’s judgment was mistaken. If the mistake warrants and supports an appeal, attorney Pyetranker will appeal that outcome to show that the only reasonable solution is to have a new trial. As needed, he will draft and file the briefs, cover all appellate motion practice, skillfully manage all other necessary processes and argue the appeal.
The Anatomy Of An Appeal
In general, an appellate court will defer to the trial court’s actions. It is not easy to reverse. This is why it’s important to select cases carefully for appeal. Mere dissatisfaction with a judge’s decision is not sufficient justification to bring an appeal.
Helping clients understand when a case is or is not suitable for appeal is an important part of an initial consultation. When filing an appeal, attorney Pyetranker devotes the time and research efforts necessary to write a compelling brief, which is crucial for success at the appellate level. It is necessary to prepare an effective appellate brief when filing for an appeal.
If you agree with the outcome but your adversary does not and takes an appeal, skillful and strategic defensive appellate work is necessary. Attorney Pyetranker has successfully vindicated the trial court’s actions.
Attorney Pyetranker began developing a skill set in the appellate arena early in his career, briefing and arguing cases before Connecticut’s appellate courts, such as McKenna v. Delente, 123 Conn. App. 137 (2010) (co-author on brief), Brown v. Brown, 132 Conn. App. 30 (2011) (co-author on brief), Keller v. Keller, 141 Conn. App. 681 (2013) (co-author on brief), Pryor v. Pryor, 162 Conn. App. 451 (2016) (argued and co-author on brief) and Weyer v. Weyer, 164 Conn. App. 734 (2016) (co-author on brief).
In 2017, attorney Pyetranker briefed Chang v. Chang, 170 Conn. App. 822, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 910 (2017), which affirmed the client’s successful claim at trial that the parties’ premarital agreement was invalid.
In 2018, in Keusch v. Keusch, 184 Conn. App. 822 (2018), attorney Pyetranker briefed and argued the finer points of setting and modifying child support pursuant to Connecticut’s child support guidelines.
In Krahel v. Czoch, 186 Conn. App. 22, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 958 (2018), attorney Pyetranker briefed and argued for a successful outcome affirming the trial court’s sanction of testimonial preclusion based on the husband’s failure to disclose important financial information and documents.
He also briefed and argued Barber v. Barber, 193 Conn. App. 190 (2019). Although the Appellate Court was constrained to dismiss his client’s cross appeal on mootness grounds, attorney Pyetranker successfully defended the trial court’s favorable rulings from attack in the main appeal.
In 2020, attorney Pyetranker briefed and argued Chang v. Chang, 197 Conn. App. 733 (2020), this time helping overturn a contempt finding of an improper exercise of final decision-making authority.
He also briefed and argued Silver v. Silver, 200 Conn. App. 505, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 973 (2020). The Appellate Court affirmed, agreeing with attorney Pyetranker’s alternative claim that the trial court’s post-judgment clarification, even if treated as a modification, was not erroneous.
In 2019, Attorney Pyetranker briefed and argued Oudheusden v. Oudheusden, 190 Conn. App. 169 (2019). The Appellate Court agreed with attorney Pyetranker to reverse the trial court’s financial orders.
In 2021, the Supreme Court would weigh in and deliver a landmark opinion. Attorney Pyetranker briefed and argued the certified issues. In reviewing the Appellate Court’s decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Court, and attorney Pyetranker, that the trial court erred. In doing so, the Supreme Court also broke legal ground in several respects, but mainly by fleshing out the rule against “double counting” in Connecticut law and explaining its application to the valuation of businesses. Oudheusden v. Oudheusden, __ Conn. __ (2021). The opinion offers guidance to trial courts that wrestle with rendering fair alimony and property awards in sophisticated family matters. For his brief to the Supreme Court, attorney Pyetranker consulted with and gained invaluable insight from retired Supreme Court Justice Peter T. Zarella.