Ill v. Manzo-Ill, 166 Conn. App. 809

After a 2008 dissolution, the court awarded nominal $1-per-year reciprocal alimony but reserved jurisdiction to modify future alimony based on earned employment income only.
The defendant (Ellen Manzo-Ill) filed a postjudgment motion to modify alimony in April 2010, alleging changed circumstances (plaintiff’s employment/income increase and her lack of access to distributed funds).
Extensive, sporadic discovery followed from 2010–2013: many subpoenas and noticed depositions, frequent motions to quash/protect by the plaintiff, some production, but the defendant never completed any depositions or obtained tax returns she sought.
The plaintiff moved to dismiss in February 2012 (first motion denied by Judge Schofield), and again in December 2013; the second motion argued the defendant failed to reclaim/prosecute the motion under Practice Book § 25‑34(e) and Practice Book § 14‑3.
The trial court (Judge Heller) granted the December 2013 motion to dismiss in May 2014, finding (a) the defendant failed to show good cause to reclaim the motion within three months of filing and (b) she failed to prosecute the motion with reasonable diligence; reargument was denied.
On appeal, the defendant argued (1) § 25‑34(e) does not authorize dismissal and (2) the court’s factual findings (lack of good cause and lack of diligence) were erroneous; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Practice Book § 25‑34(e) authorizes dismissal of an unreclaimed motion	§ 25‑34(e) bars reclaiming stale motions; dismissal is appropriate to clear docket and prevent stale motions	§ 25‑34(e) does not expressly authorize dismissal; dismissal should await a merits hearing	Court held § 25‑34(e) permits dismissal (and court also relied on inherent authority and § 14‑3 to dismiss)
Whether defendant showed good cause for failing to reclaim within three months	Defendant’s discovery disputes and plaintiff’s appeal/reprieves justified delay	Delay was largely unexplained and defendant had long periods of inactivity and failed follow‑through	Court held factual finding of no good cause was not clearly erroneous
Whether the motion was prosecuted with reasonable diligence under Practice Book § 14‑3	Plaintiff argued motion languished nearly four years with sporadic, ineffective activity causing prejudice	Defendant argued ongoing discovery efforts and readiness to proceed as of Feb 2014	Court held dismissal for failure to prosecute was within discretion; no abuse of discretion found
Appropriate sanction for stale/abandoned family motions	Dismissal prevents indefinite pending motions and preserves nonmovant’s ability to close case	Defendant sought allowance to proceed to hearing or scheduling order instead of dismissal	Court concluded dismissal is appropriate sanction and consistent with docket management and precedent

Wexler v. DeMaio, 280 Conn. 168 (discussion of plenary review for legal construction of rules)
In re Shanaira C., 297 Conn. 737 (statutory/rule interpretation principles)
Larson v. Larson, 89 Conn. App. 57 (standard: factual review of good‑cause under § 25‑34[e])
Krevis v. Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for case‑management dismissals under § 14‑3)
In re Investigation of the Grand Juror, 188 Conn. 601 (definition of "action" to include motions)
Feuerman v. Feuerman, 39 Conn. App. 775 (inherent authority of courts to manage dockets)
ATC Partnership v. Windham, 268 Conn. 463 (clear‑error standard for factual findings)