151 Conn.App. 174
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Weinstein & Wisser, P.C. sued Frederick B. Cornelius for unpaid legal fees; default entered and judgment for $24,509.66 plus costs in 2007 after Cornelius failed to appear.
- About five years later Cornelius filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, attaching an affidavit denying residence at the address where process was served.
- Cornelius also filed a motion to open the default judgment, relying on the jurisdictional defect; the trial court treated the motion as a standard motion to open under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-212(a) / Practice Book § 17-43 and denied it for failure to show a meritorious defense.
- The trial court refused to separately consider the motion to dismiss until the judgment was opened; Cornelius appealed the denial of the motion to dismiss.
- The parties submitted competing affidavits about Cornelius’s residence at the time of service (marshal’s hearsay and plaintiff’s mail evidence v. Cornelius’s denial), creating a factual dispute about sufficiency of service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is moot because defendant did not appeal denial of motion to open | Appeal is moot; denial of motion to open stands so no practical relief is available | Appeal is not moot because a default judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void and can be attacked directly | Not moot; motions to open and dismiss were inextricably intertwined and appellate review of jurisdiction is permitted |
| Proper standard for a postjudgment jurisdictional attack | Defendant must meet preliminary showing and cannot bypass § 52-212(a)/Practice Book § 17-43 requirements | Jurisdictional defects render judgments void ab initio; court has inherent authority to open void judgments independent of § 52-212(a) requirements | Court erred by analyzing the motion solely under § 52-212(a)/Practice Book § 17-43; jurisdictional claim invokes inherent power to open void judgment |
| Whether a hearing on personal jurisdiction was required given competing affidavits | No; plaintiff contends defendant’s affidavit was insufficient to create a disputed factual issue warranting a hearing | Yes; defendant’s affidavit directly disputed residence alleged for service, creating a material factual dispute | Hearing required because affidavits presented disputed facts about defendant’s usual place of abode; due process requires an evidentiary hearing |
| Standard for opening a default judgment rendered without jurisdiction | Apply the two‑prong § 52-212(a)/Practice Book § 17-43 test | If judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction, it can be opened regardless of the statutory four-month/time/test limits | A judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction is void ab initio and may be opened based on the court’s inherent authority irrespective of statutory/test limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Argent Mortgage Co., LLC v. Huertas, 288 Conn. 568 (discussing mootness and inextricably intertwined issues)
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (pleading interpretation is a question of law requiring plenary review)
- Nelson v. The Contracting Group, LLC, 127 Conn. App. 45 (two‑part test to open default judgment under § 52‑212(a))
- Devore Associates, LLC v. Sorkin, 132 Conn. App. 244 (court’s inherent authority to open a judgment rendered without jurisdiction)
- Weihing v. Dodsworth, 100 Conn. App. 29 (due process requires hearing when jurisdictional facts are disputed)
- Ferreira v. Pringle, 255 Conn. 330 (courts may consider supporting affidavits when resolving jurisdictional motions)