125 Conn. App. 207
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Diana M. Jordan sought a new trial in a marital dissolution; trial court issued judgment August 21, 2009.
- Defendant filed motion for new trial September 4, 2009 alleging failure to issue decision within 120 days after trial.
- Court issued a September 8, 2009 corrected memorandum addressing transposition errors; later issued a second corrected memorandum October 20, 2009.
- Plaintiff argued the second correction constituted a new judgment issued beyond 120 days and that timely correction was improper.
- Court held it could open and correct within four months under § 52-212a; first and second corrections were permissible as corrections, not separate final judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 51-183b time limit applies to judgments here | Jordan argues judgment issued beyond 120 days after trial. | Jordan contends the 120-day rule controls the final judgment. | The four-month correction regime governs. |
| Whether corrections were permissible under § 52-212a | Corrections exceed four months after judgment and are invalid. | Corrections within four months to preserve judgment integrity are allowed. | Corrections were permissible within four months. |
| Whether the second corrected memorandum constituted a new judgment | Second correction changed orders, creating a new judgment outside 120 days. | Second correction clarifies record; not a new final judgment. | No new judgment; within permissible modification. |
| Whether defendant's timely objection affected validity of the judgment | Objection to late judgment should void the entry. | Objection was not effective to void corrected memoranda. | Objection did not void the corrected memoranda; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc., 275 Conn. 420 (2005) (equitable power to modify to protect judgment integrity)
- State v. Wilson, 199 Conn. 417 (1986) (four-month correction window; limits on modification)
- Cioffoletti v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 34 Conn. App. 685 (1994) (clerical errors can be corrected anytime; substantive issues within four months)
- Munson v. Munson, 98 Conn. App. 869 (2006) (judgment should admit of a consistent construction; clerical errors)
- Rome v. Album, 73 Conn. App. 103 (2002) (illustrates four-month modification principle)
- Cowles v. Cowles, 71 Conn. App. 24 (2002) (timing for posttrial materials to trigger 120-day period)