145 Conn. App. 33
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Parties: Self-represented former spouses Iris S. Lynn (plaintiff) and Roderick A. Lynn (defendant). Court dissolved the marriage and ordered sale of the marital home with proceeds divided equally; defendant was to be 100% responsible for mortgage debt owed to his father and brother, and his share would be reduced if closing paid those notes.
- After closing, plaintiff moved for contempt alleging defendant violated the order regarding payment of his father’s mortgage; trial court found defendant in contempt and imposed a purge amount of $21,671.19, which defendant paid.
- Defendant appealed; this court reversed the contempt judgment, holding the trial court misconstrued the original judgment and denied due process, and remanded to determine whether defendant owed plaintiff funds and, if so, how much.
- On remand the trial court (Judge Pinkus) held an evidentiary hearing, found the defendant’s claims without merit, calculated the proceeds and payments, concluded plaintiff actually received $31,496.81 and that defendant had overpaid plaintiff $2,500.
- Defendant filed multiple motions for articulation seeking clarification on several points; the trial court denied them. Defendant appealed again, raising nine interrelated claims including alleged failure to address issues/findings, denial of articulations, and judicial bias.
- Appellate court reviewed the record and briefs, found the defendant’s brief inadequately developed, declined to reach the merits of most claims, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant owed funds from sale proceeds | Plaintiff argued she was entitled to her share of proceeds plus post-judgment relief; court found she received $31,496.81 | Defendant argued trial court misconstrued original judgment and that the court failed to address material claims on remand | Court held remand hearing properly resolved whether funds were owed; found defendant overpaid plaintiff $2,500 and judgment stands |
| Whether trial court failed to address specific issues/findings on remand | Plaintiff maintained the court applied Judge Prestley’s order correctly | Defendant claimed the court failed to make required findings and ignored issues raised in his trial brief | Court concluded it considered all defendant’s claims; defendant’s brief provided inadequate analysis, so claims were not reviewed on merit |
| Proper remedy for denial of motions for articulation | Plaintiff did not challenge articulation denial on appeal | Defendant argued denial of articulations warranted reversal | Court held appeal was improper vehicle; relief for articulation denial is by motion for review under Practice Book §66-7, not this appeal |
| Judicial bias allegation | Plaintiff denied bias existed | Defendant alleged denial of neutral justice but did not cite specific conduct or preservation | Court declined to consider bias claim because it was not included in the statement of issues and lacked specific factual support |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynn v. Lynn, 130 Conn. App. 319 (Conn. App. 2011) (reversed contempt judgment and remanded to determine whether defendant owed plaintiff funds)
- Traylor v. State, 128 Conn. App. 182 (Conn. App. 2011) (pro se litigants are bound by same briefing rules; appellate courts need adequate briefing and analysis)
- Dichello v. Holgrath Corp., 49 Conn. App. 339 (Conn. App. 1998) (assignments of error mentioned but not briefed are deemed abandoned)
- Rivnak v. Rivnak, 99 Conn. App. 326 (Conn. App. 2007) (motion for review is the appropriate mechanism to challenge denial of articulation)