Farren v. Farren
2013 WL 1584463
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Mary Margaret Farren filed a dissolution action against J. Michael Farren on January 4, 2010.
- The dissolution judgment was entered June 16, 2011 with a 75%/25% asset division in favor of the plaintiff and in which Xerox pension and other assets were addressed; Xerox stock options of 55,000 were retained by the defendant.
- The court’s June 13, 2011 memorandum of decision contained findings about the parties’ education, earning capacity, and the defendant’s violent conduct; SERP assets were addressed as part of the asset division.
- Around July 2011, the defendant moved to open and correct the judgment; he attempted to file by fax on July 6, 2011 but paid the filing fee on July 7, 2011, after the clerk date-stamped the filing as July 7, 2011.
- The plaintiff moved to dismiss the motion to open; the court denied the motion to open and correct, granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, and overruled the defendant’s objection on October 19, 2011.
- The defendant appealed in November 2011; portions of the appeal were later dismissed as moot, and the trial court’s June 6, 2012 memorandum explained the denial of the motion to open and the other rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open and correct the judgment | Farren asserts multiple errors; argues good cause existed to open. | Farren contends eight specific items merit correction and noncompliance with § 11-10 is excusable due to later filing. | No abuse; proper to require compliance and no good and compelling reason shown |
| Whether the court properly denied the date-of-filing determination | Farren’s filing fee was paid within the time for preservation; the date-stamp should reflect timely filing. | Farren argues the date of filing should be July 6, 2011 based on receipt timing. | Moot; fee timing controls; appellate review limited to denial of opening |
| Whether the court properly denied the expedited order regarding SERP benefits | SERP benefits were part of the dissolution asset distribution and collateral attack is improper. | SERP benefits are earnings not marital assets and should be treated differently. | Collateral attack on underlying judgment; properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (Conn. 2008) (good reason required for opening judgment; abuse of discretion reviewed narrowly)
- Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 (Conn. 1985) (filing fee mandatory for motion to open; timing matters)
- Urban Redevelopment Commission v. Katsetos, 86 Conn. App. 236 (Conn. App. 2004) (collateral attack on judgments improper; resort to direct appeal)
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (Conn. 2009) (look to substance of relief, not form, for post-judgment relief)
- Berzins v. Berzins, 105 Conn. App. 648 (Conn. App. 2008) (timing of appeals from postjudgment orders; mootness considerations)