Ellen S. v. Katlyn F.
167 A.3d 1182
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Ellen S.) applied for a civil protection order under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-16a alleging stalking and recounting multiple incidents over ~3 years, including yelling/near-overturning a table and a two-handed shove. Court issued an ex parte order and later held a hearing.
- Hearing (Jan 19, 2016) included testimony from plaintiff, plaintiff’s boyfriend (former boyfriend of defendant), defendant (Katlyn F.), and a mutual friend; plaintiff described four incidents at bars and a friend’s house from 2014–2015.
- Trial court found the plaintiff had "sustained proof," stated "this is stalking," and issued a six-month civil protection order prohibiting assault, threat, harassment, following, interference, or stalking.
- Defendant appealed arguing the evidence did not support (1) findings that she committed stalking (second degree) and (2) findings that she would continue such conduct absent protection.
- On appeal, defendant failed to include a signed memorandum of decision in the appendix and did not secure a signed transcript of the court’s oral decision; only an unsigned hearing transcript was in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court reasonably found grounds for a civil protection order under § 46b-16a | Plaintiff argued testimony showed a course of conduct supporting stalking and risk of future acts | Defendant argued evidence did not establish stalking or likelihood of future conduct | Court affirmed: limited record did not show error; order presumed correct |
| Adequacy of record for appellate review (missing memorandum of decision) | N/A — appellee did not file brief | Defendant contended trial court erred on law/fact but failed to provide signed decision | Court held appellant failed to provide required memorandum; unsigned transcript insufficient to show claimed errors |
| Whether unsigned transcript suffices when no memorandum filed | N/A | Defendant relied on unsigned hearing transcript to show trial court’s findings were unsupported | Court: unsigned transcript lacks sufficiently detailed findings here; appellate review declined on merits |
| Burden of persuasion on appeal when record is limited | N/A | Defendant must demonstrate trial court erred despite presumption of correctness | Held that presumption of correctness stands; defendant did not overcome it |
Key Cases Cited
- Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441 (2010) (unsigned transcript may suffice only if it contains sufficiently detailed, concise findings)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Gianopoulos, 131 Conn. App. 15 (2012) (court may determine that unsigned transcript contains sufficient trial court findings)
- State v. Milner, 325 Conn. 1 (2017) (trial court rulings entitled to presumption of correctness absent showing to contrary)
- Stacy B. v. Robert S., 165 Conn. App. 374 (2016) (appellate review is limited when trial court’s factual/legal conclusions are not provided)
- Murcia v. Geyer, 151 Conn. App. 227 (2014) (appellate court constrained to conclude court acted reasonably on limited record)
- Lucarelli v. Freedom of Information Commission, 136 Conn. App. 405 (2012) (absence of record facts can preclude finding of abuse of discretion)
- Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (2006) (expiration of a protective order does not necessarily render appeal moot)