175 Conn. App. 800
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Rose B. filed a § 46b-16a application for a civil protection order against Princess Dickson Dawson, a former friend she had known for over 15 years, alleging stalking and fear for her safety based on three incidents (Walmart, public park, courthouse).
- The trial court (Kamp, J.) issued an ex parte protective order; a full hearing was held on October 6, 2016 before Judge Trial Referee Stodolink.
- At the hearing the plaintiff testified about three incidents (May 10, June 25, September 26); the court granted the protective order with conditions (no contact, stay-away, 100-yard restriction) through October 6, 2017.
- The defendant moved orally for reconsideration immediately after the court announced its ruling, arguing she lacked notice because the plaintiff’s application omitted dates; the court denied the request.
- On appeal the defendant argued (1) insufficient evidence to support the order/abuse of discretion and (2) erroneous denial of a continuance/reconsideration due to lack of specificity in the application. The defendant’s appendix included an unsigned three-page excerpt of the transcript rather than a signed memorandum of decision or signed transcript of the oral decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the protective order (sufficiency of evidence) | Plaintiff presented testimony describing three incidents constituting stalking and fear, supporting the requested relief | Evidence was insufficient; errors of fact or law; appellate review should find abuse of discretion | Court declined to find abuse but also declined to review substantive basis because the record lacked a signed memorandum or signed transcript of the court’s decision, so no basis to conclude error |
| Whether denial of continuance/reconsideration (for lack of dates in application) was erroneous | The application and hearing provided adequate notice; hearing scheduling was proper | Application omitted dates, causing surprise and prejudice; needed continuance or reconsideration to present an alibi | Denial was not an abuse of discretion: defendant failed to raise specificity concern before or during the hearing and only raised it after an adverse ruling (untimely) |
| Whether appellant preserved an adequate record for appellate review under Practice Book § 64-1 | Plaintiff relied on the court’s compliance and the hearing record | Appellant submitted unsigned transcript pages and no signed memorandum of decision | Appellate court held appellant failed to perfect the record; absent a signed memorandum or signed transcript of the court’s decision, the court will not speculate about the trial court’s rationale and will not presume error |
Key Cases Cited
- Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441 (Conn. App. 2010) (unsigned transcript may permit review only if it contains a sufficiently detailed statement of the trial court’s findings)
- Ellen S. v. Katlyn F., 175 Conn. App. 559 (Conn. App. 2017) (appellate court will not speculate about trial court’s rationale when record lacks a memorandum of decision)
- State v. Milner, 325 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2017) (court will not presume trial court error absent a record demonstrating error)
- Stacy B. v. Robert S., 165 Conn. App. 374 (Conn. App. 2016) (same principle regarding failure to provide signed decision for appeal)
- Shore v. Haverson Architecture & Design, P.C., 92 Conn. App. 469 (Conn. App. 2006) (standard of review for denial of motions for reconsideration is abuse of discretion)