Matrimonial & Family Law (Divorce)

We regularly handle sophisticated divorces requiring business valuations and/or extensive litigation. Cases involving substantial assets and/or complex estates require experience and specialized knowledge. We are accomplished at identifying and valuing assets and wealth, including real estate, securities, business interests, retirement funds, deferred compensation, pension plans, overseas accounts, stock options, trusts and other actual or potential sources of wealth.

HKD will protect your rights and advocate on your behalf throughout your matter. We recognize that each case is unique and may involve sensitive and critical issues ranging from child custody, visitation, and support, to alimony, equitable distribution, and the protection of assets.

While an aggressive approach to a case is often necessary, our policy is to adapt to the particular situation. If a case can be resolved without prolonged litigation (meaning numerous court appearances), we make every effort to do so. On the other hand, we gained success for many clients whose cases have gone to trial and/or appeal.

We primarily handle the following

Divorce (Marital Dissolution)

Legal Separation


Separation Agreements

Prenuptial Agreements

Postnuptial Agreement

Cohabitation Agreements

Non-marital Issues



Property Division

Equitable Distribution of Assets

Child Custody and Visitation Disputes

Child Support Matters


Post-Judgment Matters

Modification of Prior Decrees

Resolving Multi-State & International Issues

Valuation Issues


Family Businesses

Relocation Issues

Representative work

Represented partner at an international law firm in divorce proceeding. Settled on the eve of trial with the assistance of a private mediator.

Represented police officer in a multi-day trial over complex financial issues related to deferred compensation.

Represented doctor in 10 day divorce trial, resulting in favorable outcome on significant financial issues.

Represented stay-at-home wife of hedge fund partner. Settlement negotiated prior to trial.

Negotiated a postnuptial agreement involving a couple receiving a financial windfall from the sale of a family company.

Mediated a divorce settlement for a couple with serious debt issues related to failed business interests.

Successfully won a dismissal of a family law appeal brought before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Reported decisions

Catania v. Catania – Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, Jr., representing the Defendant (husband), obtained a favorable decision at trial on complex deferred compensation and social security offset issues. The trial court offset the value of the wife's social security benefits, as our client was a police officer without social security benefits. The trial court agreed with our valuations of the parties' deferred compensation assets.

Clark v. Garmendia – Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III, representing the Defendant (mother), successfully petitioned the Court for an order permitting the mother and child to relocate to France. The Defendant had remarried a French citizen, but the Plaintiff (father) opposed any move from the State of Connecticut. The Court, after consideration of testimony and legal argument, ruled that relocation to France was in the best interests of the child.

Boyle v. Jarosz – Handled by Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III, this matter was the first of its kind in the State of Connecticut. The parties, a gay couple, entered a civil union in October of 2005 after Connecticut approved such institutions. Prior to such civil union, the parties had married in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Attorney Kennedy, after argument to the Court, successfully dissolved both the Connecticut civil union and Massachusetts marriage. Attorney Kennedy, III based his arguments in large part on the Full Faith and Credit doctrine. This decision was adverse to legislative opinion on the matter.

LaCore v. LaCore – Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, Jr. successfully represented the Plaintiff in enforcing the terms of a prenuptial agreement. The Defendant had argued that she was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult with independent counsel prior to the signing of the prenuptial. At trial the Court ruled in our client’s favor, with the terms of the agreement upheld.