319 Conn. 540
Conn.2015Background
- Wendy V. filed ex parte applications for family violence restraining orders against Luis Santiago under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15; the trial court denied two applications and initially refused to hold hearings on them.
- After denial, Wendy V. moved for reconsideration; the trial court denied that motion and also denied a second application filed June 19, 2015.
- Wendy V. sought review; this court granted certification under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-265a and ordered the trial court to file a memorandum explaining why hearings were denied.
- The trial court then held hearings on July 7, 2015, and denied the applications on the merits; the Supreme Court later asked the parties to brief mootness.
- The central statutory text: § 46b-15(b) requires that, upon receipt of an application, "the court shall order that a hearing on the application be held not later than fourteen days."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must hold a hearing after a § 46b-15 application (timing/mandatory nature) | Statute's use of "shall" requires a hearing within 14 days; trial court improperly declined to hold hearings | Trial court did not need immediate hearings as it exercised discretion; mootness also relevant | Case dismissed as moot; court notes § 46b-15’s "shall" language is mandatory and is perplexed by trial court's refusal, but does not reach merits |
| Whether the appeals are moot | Not moot — seeks relief for denial of hearing; invokes "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception | Moot because hearings were later held; no practical relief available | Appeals are moot because Wendy V. received the hearings; exception does not apply |
| Applicability of "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception | Denial of hearing is inherently short-lived and likely to evade review, so exception applies | Denial effects persist indefinitely; the issue will not generally evade review | Exception inapplicable: first prong fails because denial effects are not inherently limited in duration |
| Whether appellate court can grant practical relief now | Plaintiff seeks order that hearings should have been held within 14 days | Defendant contends no relief available because hearings already occurred | No practical relief can be afforded; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478 (discusses mootness and requirement of live controversy)
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (identifies whether successful appeal would benefit a party as dispositive for mootness)
- Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370 (discusses mootness doctrine and the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
- Sweeney v. Sweeney, 271 Conn. 193 (formulates three-part test for the exception)
- In re Emma F., 315 Conn. 414 (explains paradigmatic examples where the exception applies due to time constraints)
- Kennedy v. Putnam, 97 Conn. App. 815 (App. Ct. decision suggesting denial of hearing might be of limited duration—declined by Supreme Court as dicta)
- Butts v. Bysiewicz, 298 Conn. 665 (principles on interpreting mandatory words like "shall")
- Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10 (legislative use of "shall" vs "may" implies deliberate distinction)