160 Conn.App. 32
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 1988 Weinstein borrowed $250,000; Schlesinger guaranteed the loan. The Bank of Stamford (later FDIC as successor) and the defendants agreed to a stipulated judgment on the record before Judge Tobin on October 18, 1995 for $292,014.22.
- The assistant clerk recorded a form indicating a judgment was entered but omitted the judgment amount and failed to file the parties’ written stipulation in the court’s docket (a clerical recording error).
- The stipulated judgment was assigned multiple times and ultimately reached Cadles (an assignee), which in 2011 filed a motion for order nunc pro tunc in Connecticut to correct the clerical omission and have the judgment reflect the $292,014.22 amount. Cadles served counsel of record but did not effectuate service under § 52-350e.
- Judge Mottolese granted Cadles’ motion on March 7, 2011, correcting the recorded judgment to state the $292,014.22 amount. Foreign courts (New York, Florida) initially declined to enforce the nunc pro tunc judgment.
- Schlesinger moved to dismiss in 2013, arguing lack of service, that a nonparty (Cadles) improperly filed motions, that a New York decision precluded correction, and that the court acted sua sponte to avoid jurisdictional defects. Judge Tierney denied the motion to dismiss (Feb. 28, 2014). Schlesinger appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cadles/FDIC) | Defendant's Argument (Schlesinger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court lacked jurisdiction because Cadles failed to serve Schlesinger under § 52-350e before correction | Service on counsel of record and equitable need to correct a clerical error justified court action | Lack of proper service deprived court of authority to act on Cadles’ motion | Court: jurisdictional challenge fails — court had inherent/equitable authority to correct clerical error; notice later cured and challenge moot as to correction |
| Whether a nonparty (Cadles) could file documents/motion in the underlying action | As assignee of the judgment Cadles could present evidence to correct the record; court may act on clerk notification or motion regardless of party status | Cadles, not being a party, had no right to file assignments, stipulation, or nunc pro tunc motion | Court: permitted — judge properly exercised inherent power to correct clerical error; filing by assignee did not bar correction |
| Whether New York judgment precludes Connecticut court’s correction via collateral estoppel / full faith and credit | Connecticut court not bound by foreign court rulings on enforceability; subsequent New York order reversing earlier denial renders issue nonjusticiable | New York decision finding no 1995 judgment (initial ruling) should preclude correction here | Court: moot — later New York order in Cadles’ favor eliminated preclusive effect; claim dismissed as moot |
| Whether trial court acted improperly/sua sponte to avoid Cadles’ jurisdictional failures | Correction was proper remedy to preserve integrity of original judgment; equitable powers allow correction without formal substitution | Trial court improperly acted sua sponte to cure procedural defects and to moot Cadles’ failures | Court: denied — both judges properly exercised equitable/inherent authority to correct clerical error and enforce the 1995 stipulated judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- American Trucking Assns. v. Frisco Transportation Co., 358 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1958) (courts have power and duty to correct clerical errors in judgments)
- Jordan v. Jordan, 125 Conn. App. 207 (Conn. App. 2010) (clerical errors may be corrected any time; distinction between clerical and substantive error)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Gager, 263 Conn. 321 (Conn. 2003) (motion to correct granted when recorded judgment is inconsistent with actual judgment; actual judgment must be unambiguous)
- Audubon Parking Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (Conn. 1993) (trial court authority to enforce stipulated judgments)
- Lamont v. New Hartford, 4 Conn. App. 303 (Conn. App. 1985) (reiterating courts' duty to correct clerical errors)
- Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC, 308 Conn. 719 (Conn. 2013) (mootness and justiciability standards)