192 Conn.App. 540
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Parties divorced (judgment 1984) with ongoing alimony obligation; defendant filed motions to modify alimony and for contempt on December 10, 2012.
- Pretrial activity occurred through mid-2015 (motion in limine, requests for admissions, status conference); counsel for defendant was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in February 2015.
- After a stipulation in June 2015, there was roughly an 18‑month period of inactivity (June 2015–Dec 2016); no court orders compelling accelerated prosecution were entered during that time.
- Court scheduled a status conference (Jan 2017) and a full hearing (Apr 20, 2017); at that hearing plaintiff moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute and asked defendant to waive retroactive relief; defendant refused.
- Trial court initially dismissed the motions on the spot (citing Practice Book §25‑34(f)), then vacated that ruling to permit briefing; on September 15, 2017 the court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss under Practice Book §14‑3 for failure to prosecute.
- Appellate court reversed: dismissal was disproportionate given counsel’s serious illness, lack of prior court orders, availability of lesser remedies (e.g., prospective relief or repayment plan), and appearance of punishment for refusing to waive retroactivity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Practice Book §14‑3 for failure to prosecute was appropriate | Long inactivity justified dismissal to prevent docket drift and protect plaintiff from retroactive exposure | Delay was a one‑time ~18‑month pause caused by counsel’s serious illness; defendant intended to prosecute and parties were ready for trial | Reversed: dismissal was disproportionate; court abused discretion |
| Whether the court’s dismissal was impermissibly punitive/retaliatory for refusing to waive retroactivity | Court needed to avoid retroactive exposure; plaintiff urged dismissal if retroactivity not waived | Dismissal appeared to punish defendant for refusing to waive retroactivity; court pressured waiver at hearing | Reversed: appearance of retaliatory sanction; court should not force settlement bargaining by threat of dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (dismissal/dispositive sanctions should be last resort; must be proportional)
- Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 328 Conn. 60 (2018) (proportionality factors for severe sanctions explained)
- Bobbin v. Sail the Sounds, LLC, 153 Conn. App. 716 (2014) (dismissal for prolonged inactivity can be proper)
- Ill v. Manzo-Ill, 166 Conn. App. 809 (2016) (affirming dismissal where repeated, extended inactivity and failure to complete discovery showed lack of diligence)
- Brochu v. Aesys Technologies, 159 Conn. App. 584 (2015) (four‑plus year delay supported dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Hane v. Hane, 158 Conn. App. 167 (2015) (trial court may deny retroactive modification of alimony; retroactivity is a merits issue)
- McKoy v. McKoy, 214 N.C. App. 551 (2011) (involuntary dismissal is a harsh sanction; trial courts should consider and reject lesser alternatives before dismissing)