Worth v. KORTA
132 Conn. App. 154
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Worth, pro se, sues neighboring landowners for alleged surface water diversion causing damages; trial court denied injunctive relief and later denied motions to reargue and to open the judgment; five counts against defendants were withdrawn; decision focuses on injunctive relief and postjudgment motion practice; plaintiff sought to reopen based on newly discovered evidence; appellate review limits on open motion within four months and whether the court abused discretion; court found plaintiff treated fairly as pro se and not a second-class litigant; court denied motion to open as insufficiently probative and not likely to change outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open the judgment. | Worth asserts newly discovered evidence justifies reopening. | Evidence irrelevant and delay improper; standard akin to new-trial rules. | No abuse; court properly denied the motion to open. |
| Whether Worth was improperly treated as a pro se litigant and whether that affected the outcome. | Pro se status caused unfair treatment and prejudiced her case. | Court gave appropriate latitude to pro se party and ensured fair procedure. | Court properly ensured fair treatment; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keating v. Ferrandino, 125 Conn.App. 601, 10 A.3d 59 (2010) (Conn. App. 2010) (pro se fairness and liberal construction principles discussed)
- Langewisch v. New England Residential Services, Inc., 113 Conn.App. 290, 966 A.2d 318 (2009) (Conn. App. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for postjudgment motions; presumption of correctness)
- Terracino v. Fairway Asset Management, Inc., 75 Conn.App. 63, 815 A.2d 157 (2003) (Conn. App. 2003) (new-trial standards for newly discovered evidence)
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69, 952 A.2d 1 (2008) (Conn. 2008) (equitable nature of petitions for new trials; diligence required)
- Searles v. Schulman, 58 Conn.App. 373, 753 A.2d 420 (2000) (Conn. App. 2000) (appealability of denial of motion to open; timing)
- McIver v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 195, 612 A.2d 103 (1992) (Conn. App. 1992) (new trial standards for newly discovered evidence)
- Karls v. Alexandra Realty Corp., 179 Conn. 390, 426 A.2d 784 (1980) (Conn. 1980) (injunction standard and irreparable harm considerations)