Moore v. Ferguson
232 Conn. App. 797
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Larry Allen Moore appealed a Superior Court judgment denying his motion to open dismissal of his appeal from a Probate Court decree involving ownership interests in a decedent’s LLC.
- The decedent’s will gave his LLC interest to his wife, named Moore as executor and trustee, and devised separate real property to Moore.
- The Probate Court determined, based on an operating agreement, that the defendant (Ferguson) and the decedent’s estate each owned 50% of the company.
- Moore, in his individual capacity, appealed to the Superior Court alleging fraud related to the operating agreement, but the court dismissed for lack of standing.
- Moore did not timely appeal or move to open judgment within twenty days but instead filed a motion to open more than seven months later, alleging fraud including forgery of the operating agreement.
- The court found the motion untimely, no showing of fraud on the court, and denied Moore's request for an evidentiary hearing, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for lack of standing | Moore was aggrieved as a beneficiary, executor, and trustee | Moore lacked any ownership/beneficial interest in the LLC; not aggrieved | Moore could not challenge merits as he failed to appeal or file timely motion to open |
| Timeliness of motion to open | Fraud exemption should apply to late filing | Four-month rule bars the untimely motion; no fraud on the court alleged | Motion was untimely; Moore did not show fraud on the trial court |
| Alleged fraud re: operating agreement | Fraud on Probate Court vitiated timeliness rules | Fraud, if any, did not induce the trial court’s standing decision | No facts showing fraud on the trial court; dismissal was proper |
| No evidentiary hearing on fraud | Due process required hearing on alleged fraud | No threshold facts warranting hearing; fraud issue irrelevant to standing | Court had discretion to deny hearing as alleged fraud was immaterial |
Key Cases Cited
- Searles v. Schulman, 58 Conn. App. 373 (timely motion or appeal required to challenge underlying judgment; otherwise, only discretion review on motion to open)
- Worth v. Korta, 132 Conn. App. 154 (late filings cannot revive merits of underlying judgment; preserves strict timeliness for appeals)
- Karen v. Loftus, 228 Conn. App. 163 (trial court’s discretion in motion to open reviewed for abuse; strong presumption in favor of trial court action)
- Tyler E. Lyman, Inc. v. Lodrini, 78 Conn. App. 684 (trial court discretion not disturbed absent clear abuse; evidentiary hearing required only if threshold showing made)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tarzia, 186 Conn. App. 800 (motion to open judgment without threshold showing need not be set for evidentiary hearing)