DocketNumber: No. 5285
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13365, 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 201
Judges: DiPENTIMA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 11/21/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
At the hearing on the various motions, the plaintiff was not present and no testimony was offered by either side. Nevertheless, plaintiff's counsel argued for a finding of contempt against the defendant and cited the case of HartfordFederal Savings Loan Assn. v. Tucker,
It is clear that under Connecticut law, there was insufficient evidence provided to the court to enter a finding of contempt against the defendant. "Our cases have consistently held that a finding of contempt for conduct that has allegedly occurred outside the presence of the court may not be based solely on unsworn representations of counsel Cologne v. WestfarmsAssociates,
As to the plaintiff's Motion for Termination of the Automatic Stay and the defendant's Motion for Stay, under P.B. § 4046, "unless otherwise provided by statute or other law, proceedings to enforce or carry out the judgment shall be automatically stayed until the time to take an appeal has expired; if an appeal is filed, such proceedings shall be stayed until the final determination of the cause[.]" The rule also provides for relief from the automatic stay if the court determines that "due administration of justice so requires."
The court has reviewed the Hartford Federal case cited by the plaintiff and does not find it applicable to the facts of this case. The provisions of the entry and detainer statute lead this court to conclude that once a writ of restitution has been CT Page 13367 ordered it is considered a final judgment. See C.G.S. §
When judgment has been rendered for a permanent injunction ordering either party to perform any act, the court, upon an application similar to that mentioned in
52-476 , shall stay the operation of such injunction until a final decision in the court having jurisdiction, unless the court is of the opinion that great and irreparable injury will be done by such stay or that such application was made only for delay and not in good faith.
Here the defendant disobeyed an order of the court within the statutory appeal period and filed a timely appeal. Not until twenty some days after the Motion for Contempt was filed against him did he file a motion to terminate the stay. The plaintiff, on the other hand, did not proceed with his Motion for Contempt at the first scheduled hearing in September and in fact med a motion for relief from the automatic stay. Neither the statute nor the practice book have provided much guidance to counsel or the court.
The court concludes that it is the burden of the defendant to seek relief from the automatic stay. The court bases this on the type of relief sought in a C.G.S. §
Based upon the findings the court made in its original order and the lack of any evidence proffered by the defendant as to the value of the retained personal property to him, the court finds that the plaintiff will suffer great and irreparable harm if he is further deprived of his personal property and that the defendant will not suffer such harm if the plaintiff's property is returned. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for stay is denied. The defendant is ordered to return the personal property CT Page 13368 to the plaintiff no later than November 26, 1995.
Alexandra Davis DiPentima, Judge