DocketNumber: No. CV 96 0071571 S
Judges: FRAZZINI, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 10/20/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The logic of the defendants' argument is appealing. A verdict is a final judgment, for purposes of appeal (Practice Book Section
If defendants are correct, however, then no prejudgment remedy is ever valid alter a verdict, even those issued prior to judgment, for §
Although there is no binding precedent from the Supreme Court or Appellate Court on this question, this court agrees with the analyses of Judges DeVita and Blue in the cases cited by plaintiff.4 A verdict may be a final judgment for some purposes, i.e., appeal, but not for others. Our Supreme Court itself observed the complexity of this issue in Preisner v. AetnaCasualty Surety Co.,
As this court has previously noted, the effect of a pending appeal upon an otherwise final judgment has aptly been characterized as "[o]ne of the most troublesome problems in applying the rule of finality [of judgments], because this is an area in which "[t]here are no technically precise and universally recognized rules . . ." In the absence of universally applicable rules we have recognized that the relationship between a pending appeal and a judgment depends upon the nature of the issue that is to be addressed. Accordingly, a trial court judgment has been held to be final, despite a pending appeal., insofar as the issue was CT Page 13853 the triggering of the statute of limitations; the continuing validity of interlocutory alimony orders; or the applicability of the rules of res judicata. In Bissell, we held that such a judgment was not final for the purpose of determining the law governing mortgage foreclosures when that law was amended during the pendency of an appeal.
The finality of a trial court judgment is not directly affected by the fact that an appeal automatically stays the enforcement of a judgment. See Practice Book 4046 (formerly 3065). The stay does not vacate the judgment obtained by the successful litigant. It merely denies that party "the immediate fruits of his or her victory"; in order to protect the full and unhampered exercise of the right of appellate review. Correlatively, an order of execution, in the absence of a stay, does not moot the justiciability of a pending appeal. "If a judgment has been satisfied before it is reversed . . . `the law raises an obligation in the party to the record, who has received the benefit of the erroneous judgment, to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost; and the mode of proceeding to effect this object must be regulated according to circumstances.'
The finality of a judgment may, however, depend upon, the outcome of the pending appeal. If the trial court's judgment is sustained, or the appeal dismissed, the final judgment ordinarily is that of the trial court. If, however, there is reversible error, the final judgment is that of the appellate court.
Citations omitted.
Accordingly, the court overrules defendants' objection to plaintiffs' application for prejudgment remedy. By previous agreement of the parties, this matter should now be scheduled for hearing on the application itself
SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
BY: Stephen F. Frazzini, Judge of the Superior Court
DATE: 10\19\99 CT Page 13854