Bojila v. Shramko
Decision Date | 16 December 2003 |
Docket Number | (AC 22775). |
Citation | 80 Conn. App. 508,836 A.2d 1207 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | OLENA BOJILA v. OLGA SHRAMKO, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF PETER HLYWA) |
West, DiPentima and Peters, Js. P. Jo Anne Burgh, with whom was Irene P. Romanelli, for the appellant (substitute plaintiff).
George J. Markley, with whom, on the brief, was Alexander Breiner, for the appellee (defendant).
The substitute plaintiff, William J. Friedberg, administrator of the estate of Olena Bojila,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court, denying the motion that had been filed by Bojila to open the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Olga Shramko, administratrix of the estate of Peter Hlywa.2 On appeal, the substitute plaintiff claims, pursuant to Practice Book § 19-16, that the court abused its discretion by sustaining the defendant's objection to opening the judgment rendered pursuant to the report of an attorney trial referee (referee). More specifically, the substitute plaintiff claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render judgment on October 22, 2001, (2) lacked statutory jurisdiction to render judgment on October 22, 2001, (3) rendered a void judgment,3 (4) violated Bojila's constitutional right to procedural due process and (5) improperly found that her objection to the referee's report was untimely, conclusory and unaccompanied by transcripts. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record discloses the following facts and procedural history. On October 19, 2001, Bojila filed an objection to the court's acceptance of an August 19, 2001 referee's report that had been mailed to the parties on October 2, 2001. On October 22, 2001, the court rendered judgment for the defendant pursuant to that report and noted what it perceived to be the absence of an objection to its being rendered.
On November 9, 2001, Bojila filed a motion to open the judgment, claiming that the October 19, 2001 objection had been seasonably filed. On November 21, 2001, the defendant filed an objection to the motion to open the judgment. The court sustained the defendant's objection on December 3, 2001, and indicated that it was then in possession of Bojila's October 19, 2001 objection. The court determined that Bojila's objection was (1) untimely under Practice Book § 19-15 because it was not filed within twenty-one days of the mailing of the referee's report, (2) conclusory because it lacked specific assertions of fact and (3) violative of Practice Book § 19-14 because no transcript of the evidence was filed with the objection.
On December 20, 2001, Bojila filed a motion to reargue, contending that her objection was timely filed. The court denied that motion on January 28, 2002, finding that, irrespective of the timeliness issue, the transcripts were not part of the court file. This appeal followed.
We first note the standard of review of a court's denial of a motion to open a judgment. "[I]n granting or denying a motion to open a judgment, the trial court is required to exercise a sound judicial discretion and its decision will be set aside only for an abuse of such discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Conway v. Hartford, 60 Conn. App. 630, 634, 760 A.2d 974 (2000). "In an appeal from a denial of a motion to open a judgment, our review is limited to the issue of whether the trial court has acted unreasonably and in clear abuse of its discretion." Carlin Contracting Co. v. Dept. of Consumer Protection, 49 Conn. App. 501, 502-503, 714 A.2d 714 (1998).
The substitute plaintiff's first claim is that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render judgment on October 22, 2001. He argues that pursuant to the plain language of Practice Book § 19-16, the court could not have rendered judgment on the referee's report until October 23, 2001.4 The substitute plaintiff argues that because of that apparent procedural irregularity, the October 22, 2001 judgment should be vacated. We disagree.
"[B]ecause [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. v. Branford, 247 Conn. 407, 410, 722 A.2d 271 (1999). "As we have consistently recognized, [a] lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and cannot be waived by either party." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cohen v. Cohen, 41 Conn. App. 163, 165, 674 A.2d 869 (1996).
(Citation omitted.) Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 185, 413 A.2d 819, appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 801, 100 S. Ct. 20, 62 L. Ed. 2d 14 (1979). "Our practice does not favor the termination of proceedings without a determination of the merits of the controversy where that can be brought about with due regard to necessary rules of procedure." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Coppola v. Coppola, 243 Conn. 657, 665, 707 A.2d 281 (1998). Practice Book § 19-16 is designed to allow a party time to file an objection. Here, Bojila filed an objection on October 19, 2001, and the court rendered judgment on October 22, 2001, one day less than the full twenty-one days afforded by Practice Book § 19-16. The court then considered Bojila's objection in its ruling on the motion to open the judgment.
Rendering of judgment one day early under Practice Book § 19-16, but after Bojila's objection was filed, when that objection was duly considered by the court during its review of the motions to open and to reargue, is clearly the type of lesser irregularity that will not strip the court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Monroe v. Monroe, supra, 177 Conn. 184-85 ( ); see also Cohen v. Cohen, supra, 41 Conn. App. 167 ( ). Nowhere does the substitute plaintiff contend that Bojila would have filed another objection in addition to, or amending, the objection already filed.
We will address the substitute plaintiff's claim related to the plain language interpretation of Practice Book § 19-16 in greater detail with respect to his argument about statutory jurisdiction.
The substitute plaintiff's second claim is that the court committed plain error by rendering judgment before the expiration of the twenty-one day period set forth in Practice Book § 19-16, thereby exceeding its statutory authority.5 He construes Practice Book §§ 19-15 and 19-16 together to mean that any rendering of judgment before the expiration of the twenty-one day grace period is, regardless of the circumstances, an abuse of the authority granted to the court by those rules.6 We disagree.
The substitute plaintiff requests plain error review of his claim.7 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ipacs v. Cranford, 65 Conn. App. 441, 446, 783 A.2d 1044 (2001).
"A charge that demonstrates that the trial court has overlooked the applicable statute justifies consideration as plain error." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. We will consider the claim that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the court's failure to follow strictly the language of Practice Book § 19-16, which he contends is mandatory. "The [plaintiff] cannot prevail under [Practice Book § 19-16], however, unless he demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment will result in manifest injustice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ipacs v. Cranford, supra, 65 Conn. App. 446.
The interpretive construction of the rules of practice is governed by the same principles as those regulating statutory interpretation. State v. Pare, 253 Conn. 611, 622, 755 A.2d 180 (2000). The interpretation of a statute, as well as its applicability to a given set of facts and circumstances, involves a question of law, and our review, therefore, is plenary. See Wallingford v. Dept. of Public Health, 262 Conn. 758, 773, 817 A.2d 644 (2003). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723, 734, 830 A.2d 228 (2003).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morera v. Thurber
...The proper construction of a rule of practice presents a question of law over which our review is plenary. Bojila v. Shramko, 80 Conn.App. 508, 514–15, 836 A.2d 1207 (2003). As an appellate body, this court possesses "the authority to determine whether the provisions of our Practice Book ar......
-
D'Amato v. Hart-D'Amato, AC 36849
...afforded the opportunity to present her points of view in writing. Such opportunity satisfies due process. See Bojila v. Shramko, 80 Conn.App. 508, 518, 836 A.2d 1207 (2003) (absence of hearing on motion to open not violation of procedural due process where hearing not required under Practi......
-
Morera v. Thurber
...The proper construction of a rule of practice presents a question of law over which our review is plenary. Bojila v. Shramko, 80 Conn. App. 508, 514-15, 836 A.2d 1207 (2003). As an appellate body, this court possesses "the authority to determine whether the provisions of our Practice Book a......
-
Barber v. Barber
...a judgment, our review is limited to whether the court acted unreasonably and in clear abuse of its discretion. Bojila v. Shramko, 80 Conn.App. 508, 511, 836 A.2d 1207 (2003). “In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, this court must make every reasonable presumption in......