Carabetta v. Carabetta, 133 Conn. App. 732

On May 5, 2008, the parties finalized a separation agreement incorporated into the dissolution judgment.
Paragraph 7.2 provided the defendant would quitclaim Meriden real property and consent to use of the guest house and three garages.
On September 8, 2008 the plaintiff moved for contempt alleging encumbrances remained on the Meriden property.
December 12, 2008 the court denied contempt without prejudice and ordered clarification of the property issue.
March 13, 2009 the plaintiff sought clarification of boundary lines, asserting the guest house and garages should be included.
February 26, 2010 the court’s memorandum found the guest house/garages were not credibly claimed to be included, redrew boundaries so the entire home is within the deeded property, denied contempt and denied attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dissolution judgment should be opened for mutual mistake.	Carabetta argues mutual mistake existed and the judgment should be opened.	No motion to open was filed; no mutual mistake shown.	No error; court did not open sua sponte; no mutual mistake shown.
Whether the court erred in denying contempt for unmarketable title.	Defendant knew title was unmarketable.	Contempt issue not properly preserved or briefed.	Not reviewed due to inadequate briefing.
Whether the court erred in not awarding attorney’s fees.	Attorney’s fees should be awarded to plaintiff.	No basis presented in adequately briefed record.	Not reviewed due to inadequate briefing.

Dainty Rubbish Service, Inc. v. Beacon Hill Assn., Inc., 32 Conn.App. 530 (1993) (mutual mistake and opening judgments discussed; motion required)
Solomon v. Keiser, 22 Conn.App. 424 (1990) (judgment may be opened only on motion; four-month limit otherwise)
Townsley v. Townsley, 37 Conn.App. 100 (1995) (court cannot sua sponte decide a motion not presented by the parties)
Masters v. Masters, 201 Conn. 50 (1986) (inherent power to open a judgment procured by fraud)