JEAN-MARC JACQUES v. MURIEL JACQUES
(AC 41789)
DiPentima, C. J., and Moll and Bishop, Js.
officially released December 24, 2019
Argued October 21
Thе “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal оr the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for сertification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correctiоn prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between thе advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Repоrts or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the оpinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State оf Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connеcticut.
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract. Specifically, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that thе defendant breached the parties’ marital separation agreement by failing to disclose certain assets. Following a trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. On appeal, he claimed, inter alia, that the trial court erred by concluding that his aсtion was barred by the applicable statute of limitations (
Procedural History
Action to recover damages for breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the court, Hon. Gerard I. Adelman, judge trial referee; judgment for the defеndant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Keith Yagaloff, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Brandon B. Fontaine, with whom, on the brief, was C. Michael Budlong, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
The following facts and procedural histоry are relevant to the disposition of the plaintiff’s appeal. In May, 2016, the plaintiff brought a breach of contract action against the defendant, alleging that she had breached the parties’ marital separation agreement by failing to disclose assets. Paragraph 10 (h) of the separation agreement provided:
“[A]ny assets over ten thousand and 00/100 ($10,000.00) dollars in fair market value that the [defendant] owns or has an equitable interest in at the time of the dissolution which are not shown by the [defendant] on her financial affidavit, shall, upon discovery by the other party, become [the plaintiff’s] property without any defense interposed by the [defendant] whatsoever as to such claims of the other party.”
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant liquidated two annuities prior to the divorce. The plaintiff argued that the proceeds from these liquidated annuities, totaling $1,153,444.78, were undisclosed assets under paragraph 10 (h) of the separation agreement. The defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and raised a number of special defenses, including that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations governing breach of contract actions, as provided in
Before this court, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in a number of ways relating to the applicability of the statute of limitations. The plaintiff does not, however, challenge the trial сourt’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to support his claim that the defendant had breached the separation agreement.
“Where an appellant fails to challenge all bases for a trial court’s adverse ruling on his claim, even if this court were to agree with the appellant on the issues that hе does raise, we still would not be able to provide [him] any relief in light of the binding adverse finding[s] [not raised] with respect to those claims. . . . Therefore, when an appellant challenges a trial court’s adverse ruling, but does not challenge all independent bases for that ruling, the appeal is moot.” (Internal quotation
In the present сase, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on two grounds. First, it determined that the separation agreement remained a contract beyond the judgment of the court dissolving the marriage and that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Second, the court found that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant had breached the separation agreement, and, thus, the plaintiff’s claim failed on the merits. On appeal, the plаintiff argues that his action was not barred by the statute of limitations because the separation agreement had been incorporated into the judgment by the cоurt dissolving the marriage.3 Because the plaintiff did not challenge the trial court’s determination that he failed to prove a breach of contract, there is nо practical relief that this court can grant to him. Thus, even if we agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that his action is not barred by the statute of limitations, we would be unable to рrovide relief because the plaintiff failed to challenge the trial court’s finding on the merits. See Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLC, 330 Conn. 200, 210, 192 A.3d 406 (2018) (“[u]ndoubtedly, if there exists an unchallenged, independent ground to support a decision, an appeal from that decision would be moot, as this court could not afford practical relief even if the appellant werе to prevail on the issue raised on appeal”). Thus, the plaintiff’s appeal is moot and we are without subject matter jurisdiction.
The appeal is dismissed.