144 Conn. App. 613
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (N.D.R. Liuzzi, Inc. and Liuzzi Real Estate, Inc.) brought summary process to recover possession of real property; parties entered into stipulations and judgment of possession was stayed.
- Defendant (Lighthouse Litho, LLC) obtained an ex parte temporary injunction (Dec 22, 2011) under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-471 to prevent execution on the possession judgment while it pursued a writ of audita querela.
- After a later stipulation set move-out dates and payments, plaintiffs removed some of defendant’s belongings on Jan 28, 2012; defendant moved for contempt alleging violation of the injunction.
- Trial court found plaintiffs in civil contempt on Feb 2, 2012 but deferred penalties and any purge conditions to a later hearing; plaintiffs moved to reargue and the motion was denied on Apr 19, 2012.
- Plaintiffs appealed both the contempt finding and the denial of reargument; the appellate court sua sponte and on briefing considered whether those rulings were appealable final judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt finding is an appealable final judgment | Contempt ruling is final for appeal under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-400d(a) | Contempt finding is interlocutory because penalties and purge conditions were reserved | Not appealable — contempt finding was interlocutory under Curcio; no penalties or coercive orders issued so further proceedings could affect rights |
| Whether § 52-400d(a) makes the contempt ruling immediately appealable | § 52-400d(a) makes any contempt decision final for appeal | § 52-400d(a) applies only to postjudgment procedures (money-judgment enforcement) and not to this equitable injunction contempt | § 52-400d(a) inapplicable; it governs postjudgment money-judgment contempt, not contempt for violation of an equitable injunction under § 52-471 |
| Whether denial of motion to reargue is appealable | Denial of reargument of contempt ruling is appealable | Denial is interlocutory because underlying contempt was not final and penalties remained pending | Denial is not appealable — reargument denial is interlocutory and does not convert the underlying ruling into a final judgment |
| Preservation and merits of contempt defenses (clarity, thirty-day limit, willfulness, notice) | Plaintiffs contended injunction ambiguous, expired, not wilful, and inadequate notice; also argued insufficient time to prepare and that argument was limited | Defendant maintained plaintiffs had notice and proceeded to argue at hearing; merits reserved to trial court | Appellate court declined to reach merits and found many of plaintiffs’ objections unpreserved because plaintiffs argued at hearing and did not timely object to proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (Conn. 1983) (two-prong test for when an interlocutory order is appealable)
- Khan v. Hillyer, 306 Conn. 205 (Conn. 2012) (civil contempt finality requires coercive order or resolution of rights such that further proceedings cannot affect them)
- New Haven v. God’s Corner Church, Inc., 108 Conn. App. 134 (Conn. App. 2008) (distinguishing postjudgment procedures from non-money-equity proceedings)
- Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Conn., Inc. v. Gurski, 49 Conn. App. 731 (Conn. App. 1998) (liability-only interlocutory rulings are not appealable final judgments)