McGovern v. McGovern, 217 Conn.App. 636

Daniel McGovern filed for dissolution in May 2020; Paula McGovern filed an answer and cross‑complaint. A remote trial was set for August 27, 2021 (rescheduled from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.).
On the day of trial the plaintiff and his counsel did not appear. Counsel filed several filings earlier that day (including a request to reassign the date to a status conference) and, after the proceeding began, filed a motion for continuance claiming sudden illness.
The court waited a reasonable time, then proceeded, dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment on the defendant’s cross‑complaint (granting defendant sole custody, awarding her the home and retirement assets, and denying alimony and child support).
The record showed the plaintiff’s repeated noncompliance with court orders: late/inadequate financial affidavit, failure to comply with trial management orders, and partial compliance only after the defendant moved for sanctions.
The court denied the day‑of trial motion for continuance and later denied the plaintiff’s motion to open the judgment; the plaintiff appealed and the appeals were consolidated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance	Trial should have been continued due to counsel’s sudden illness and plaintiff’s inability to proceed	Denial was within discretion: motion untimely (filed after start), plaintiff caused delays and missed orders, continued delay would prejudice defendant	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion: untimely motion, pattern of noncompliance, age/length of case, and prejudice to defendant justified denial
Denial of motion to open judgment	Judgment should be opened because counsel was suddenly ill and plaintiff would suffer immeasurable harm	Court reasonably rejected those reasons; plaintiff failed to seek articulation of the summary denial per practice rules	Affirmed — trial court acted within its equitable discretion; plaintiff did not invoke Practice Book procedures to require an articulation
Constitutional due process claim re custody	Plaintiff claimed deprivation of fundamental liberty interest by not being heard	Claim was unpreserved and, by oral argument, plaintiff conceded custody relief was not sought; child reached majority	Not reached on the merits — claim unpreserved and effectively moot

McNamara v. McNamara, 207 Conn. App. 849 (Conn. App. 2021) (factors guiding review of continuance denials)
Watrous v. Watrous, 108 Conn. App. 813 (Conn. App. 2008) (hesitancy to find abuse when continuance requested on trial day)
Farren v. Farren, 142 Conn. App. 145 (Conn. App. 2013) (standards for motions to open civil judgments)
Zilkha v. Zilkha, 167 Conn. App. 480 (Conn. App. 2016) (limited appellate review of denial to open judgment)
Brehm v. Brehm, 65 Conn. App. 698 (Conn. App. 2001) (denial to open where party aware of conflict but requested continuance only on trial day)
Valenzisi v. Connecticut Education Assn., 150 Conn. App. 47 (Conn. App. 2014) (requirement that certain summary rulings be accompanied by an oral or written decision)
Gordon v. Gordon, 148 Conn. App. 59 (Conn. App. 2014) (presumption in favor of trial court’s discretionary acts)