137 Conn. App. 216
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- After their mother's death, the defendants held 46.67% and the plaintiffs 53.33% interests in property at 340 Brownstone Ridge, Meriden.
- Cities liens for 2006–2009 taxes and 2008–2009 water/sewer charges were assigned to plaintiffs on June 30, 2010.
- Plaintiffs, as assignees, sued Sept. 15, 2010 to foreclose the defendants’ 46.67% interest by strict foreclosure; summary judgment on liability granted Mar. 7, 2011.
- On June 24, 2011 a hearing resulted in an oral order that only 46.67% would be foreclosed; later that day a written notice stated 100% foreclosure instead.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court sua sponte opened and modified the judgment in violation of due process and improperly altered the foreclosure scope.
- The appellate court held the court lacked authority to open/modify the judgment without a party motion and without notice/hearing, and reversed the written modification and remanded for reinstitution of the original judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court unlawfully modify the judgment sua sponte? | Sanzo contends the court modified the judgment without a motion or notice. | Nenninger/Benedetto contend the court acted within hearing context and discretion. | Yes; court lacked authority to modify without a party motion and due process was violated. |
| Was the written modification an improper opening of the judgment? | Modification changed the scope from 46.67% to 100% foreclosure. | The modification reflected clerical/interpretive correction within continuing jurisdiction. | Improper; substantive modification opened the judgment without proper procedure. |
| Was the foreclosure-by-sale issue properly before the court on appeal? | Plaintiffs challenge the sale-foreclosure posture as error given value vs debt. | Issue belongs to underlying judgment opened on appeal and not properly before court. | Not properly before; must await further proceedings. |
| Should the court have corrected via clerical-error mechanism or continuing jurisdiction? | Requests correction of the record rather than open-terminate the judgment. | Dispute falls outside clerical error; involves substantive modification. | Court erred; substantive opening requires proper motion and notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bogaert v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 162 Conn. 532 (1972) (defines when a judgment is rendered in a court)
- Zoning Commission v. Fairfield Resources Management, Inc., 41 Conn. App. 89 (1996) (discusses when a court’s interpretation of its order constitutes a judgment)
- State v. Denya, 294 Conn. 516 (2010) (recognizes deference to court's interpretation of its own order)
- Carabetta v. Carabetta, 133 Conn. App. 732 (2012) (court generally cannot act sua sponte under §52-212 and §17-4)
- Townsley v. Townsley, 37 Conn. App. 100 (1995) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard on opening judgments)
- Von Kohom v. Von Kohom, 132 Conn. App. 709 (2011) (trial court lacks authority to make substantive changes without motion)
- Cusano v. Burgundy Chevrolet, Inc., 55 Conn. App. 655 (1999) (distinguishes clerical errors from substantive judgments)
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (2009) (analysis of continuing jurisdiction to effectuate judgment)