DocketNumber: No. CV97 034 49 31
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11559
Judges: SKOLNICK, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/12/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On February 6, 1997, the plaintiff brought this action against Kathy and Gary Braswell, individually and d/b/a Braswell Galleries. The plaintiff then commenced a separate action against Braswell Galleries, Inc. and the two cases were consolidated on January 7, 1998. The plaintiff filed a revised complaint in the second action in which she asserts cause of action against the defendants for breach of contract (count one), wrongful conversion (count two), unjust enrichment (count three), misrepresentation (count four), fraudulent misrepresentation (count five), and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (count six).
The case was referred to an attorney trial referee (ATR) who filed his report on June 19, 1999. The ATR recommended that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff on counts two and three and in favor of the defendants on counts one, four, five, and six. The plaintiff filed a motion to enter judgment in accordance with the ATR's report which, according to the parties, appeared on the short calendar on July 12, 1999. The parties' attorneys agreed to ask the court to mark the motion off the short calendar so the defendants could file an objection to the acceptance of the ATR's report. The plaintiff's attorney asked the clerk's office to mark the motion off the calendar, however, the motion was not marked off and on July 23, 1999, the court entered judgment in accordance with the ATR's report. On July 27, 1999, the defendants filed a motion to reject the ATR's report which the plaintiff objected to on the ground that it was untimely. On September 1, 1999, the defendants filed a motion to open judgment. The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to open judgment and a memorandum in support thereof. Although the motion to open judgment was initially granted by the court "without objection," Rush, J., on February 7, 2000, the court, Rush, J., vacated its previous ruling and granted the plaintiff's motion to reargue the motion to open the judgment "to the extent of arguing motion to reopen." The defendants filed an objection to the motion to reargue and the CT Page 11561 plaintiff filed a response thereto.
"Our courts have the inherent authority to open, correct or modify judgments, but this authority is restricted by statute and the rules of practice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ziruk v. Bedard,
In considering a motion to open judgment that has been timely filed, the court must exercise its discretion. See Ziruk v. Bedard, supra,
The defendants argue that the court should open the judgment rendered on July 23, 1999, because defendants acted with due diligence to have the motion to enter judgment in accordance with the ATR's report marked off the short calendar, and there are good reasons why a judgment should not be entered in accordance with the ATR's report. In opposition, the plaintiff contends that because the defendants' motion to reject the ATR's report was not timely, they cannot show good cause for granting their motion to open the judgment.
The procedures governing ATR reports are found in chapter 19 of the Practice Book. "A party may file objections to the acceptance of a report on the ground that conclusions of fact stated in it were not properly reached on the basis of the subordinate facts found, or that the committee or attorney trial referee erred in rulings on evidence or other rulings or that there are other reasons why the report should not be accepted" Practice Book §
In the present case, the ATR's report was filed and notice was mailed on June 16, 1999. Therefore, the two week period to file objections began to run on June 16, 1999 and ended on June 30, 1999. See Practice Book §
Accordingly, the fact that the defendants worked diligently to postpone the court's consideration of the motion to enter judgment in accordance with the ATR's report on July 12, 1999, is unavailing. The defendants' sole purpose for seeking the postponement was to submit their objection to the ATR's report, but their objection was already untimely. If there are "no timely [objection] or motion to correct filed . . . the court may accept the attorney trial referee's recommendation as if no objection has been filed." Robert Half International, Inc. v. J.S. Nasin Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. 062868 (April 17, 1998, Kaplan, J.) See also Wood Design, Inc. v. Garofalo, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 309128 (February 14, 1995, Levin, J.), aff'd.,
Therefore, the court finds that the defendants have not demonstrated that there is a good and compelling reason for the court to grant their motion to open judgment, and the defendants' motion to open judgment is denied.
SKOLNICK, J.