Farren v. Farren
| Decision Date | 29 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | AC 37080,AC 37079 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MARY MARGARET FARREN v. J. MICHAEL FARREN |
Beach, Alvord and Keller, Js.
(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Genuario, J.)
Ryan C. McKeen, with whom were Allison M. McKeen and, on the brief, J. Michael Farren, self-represented, for the appellant (defendant) in AC 37079.
Allison M. McKeen, with whom was Ryan C. McKeen, for the appellant (defendant) in AC 37080.
Ernest F. Teitell, with whom were Marco A. Allocca and, on the brief, Paul A. Slager, for the appellee (plaintiff).
BEACH, J. For the purposes of General Statutes § 52-2121 and Practice Book § 17-43,2 an involuntary commitment, on the surface, would seem to constitute reasonable cause for absence from trial and to warrant the granting of a motion to open a default judgment. The facts of the present case, however, are not ordinary. The issue in the present matter is not whether an involuntary commitment may be reasonable cause for a party's absence at trial but whether an involuntary commitment must constitute reasonable cause, even where the trial court suspects that the absentee party orchestrated his own involuntary commitment after years of dilatory tactics. We conclude that an involuntary commitment does not necessarily constitute reasonable cause, and the trial court is not required to find reasonable cause from an involuntary commitment standing alone.
This decision concerns two appeals, AC 37079 and AC 37080, arising from the same underlying case, a civil action for money damages. In AC 37079, the defendant, J. Michael Farren, appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to open the default judgment entered against him, contending that the denial was an abuse of discretion. In AC 37080, the defendant appeals from the default judgment itself. He claims that the trial court's rulings violated various constitutional rights, including the equal protection and due process guarantees of the federal and state constitutions and the sixth amendment of the federal constitution. We do not agree with the defendant's claims in either of his appeals.
The relevant facts and procedural history of these appeals are as follows. On the evening of January 6, 2010, the defendant and the plaintiff, Mary Margaret Farren, both lawyers, were at their home in New Canaan. The defendant and the plaintiff had been married for twelve years and had two young daughters. The plaintiff recently had served a complaint seeking to dissolve the parties' marriage. The parties met in their home to discuss the action, which the plaintiff refused to withdraw, despite the defendant's request that she do so. That night, the defendant physically assaulted the plaintiff with his hands, fists, and a flashlight, and said that he was going to kill her. The plaintiff lost consciousness from repeated blows to her head. When she regained consciousness, the defendant continued to hit her and attempted to strangle her. He also pulled out large amounts of her hair. Ultimately, the plaintiff and the children managed to escape from the defendant and to flee the home. Shortly after these events, and in addition to the marital dissolution action, the plaintiff initiated this civil action against the defendant to compensate her for the injuries that she suffered.3 The state also filed criminal charges against the defendant.
The civil trial was originally scheduled to begin on January 10, 2012. Significant delays resulted when the defendant repeatedly moved for continuances, instructed his counsel to withdraw,4 and moved to transfer the case to another judicial district. On December 2, 2013, the day before voir dire was to begin, the court denied yet another of the defendant's motions for a continuance. The defendant warned that, The court reassured the defendant that it would try to accommodate his "interests." Jury selection began the following day, on December 3, 2013, and it concluded by the end of the day on December 5, 2013. Evidence was to begin on Monday, December 9, 2013.
At 4:07 p.m., on Sunday, December 8, 2013, the defendant sent an e-mail to the court reading: On the morning of December 9, 2013, a court officer replied to the e-mail, advising the defendant to provide the court with a letter from his treating physician that included the reason for the hospitalization and its anticipated duration. The court briefly recessed to provide the defendant an opportunity to reply to the e-mail. By the conclusion of the recess, however, the defendant had not replied. The plaintiff moved for the entry of a default judgment. The trial court took the motion under advisement and continued the trial until the following morning.
The following morning, the trial court still had not received further communication from the defendant. The court then granted the motion for default, citing several reasons: the case had been continued multiple times while pending for almost four years, the jury had been selected, and the trial court had given the defendant an opportunity to provide medical documentation to avoid the entry of default. In entering the default, the trial court also stated that "the court may wish to vacate . . . the default, and may allow the defendant to participate in the balance of the trial, or it may make other rulings" should the defendant arrive during the hearing in damages stage. The trial then continued as a hearing in damages. See Practice Book §17-33 (a)
On December 11, 2013, during the hearing in damages, the court received a letter on letterhead of the Institute of Living, a division of Hartford Hospital. The letter appeared to be signed by a clinician and read: The trial court had no additional information regarding the defendant's status. The plaintiff continued to present evidence in the case. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, on December 17, 2013, the jury reached a verdict in the amount of $28.6 million in favor of the plaintiff. The court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict and extended the time to file posttrial motions until January 31, 2014.
The defendant filed a motion to open the judgment on January 31, 2014. In his motion, the defendant stated that he had been absent because on December 8, 2013—the day before trial—he was involuntarily committed to the Institute of Living for fifteen days pursuant to an emergency certificate. He stated that during this period of commitment, he had not been permitted to communicate with the court. The defendant attached the following documents in support of his motion: (1) a physician's emergency certificate dated December 8, 2013, at 11:15 p.m.; (2) Institute of Living's application for the involuntary commitment of the defendant as a person with psychiatric disabilities; (3) a letter dated December 17, 2013, that was addressed to the Stamford Superior Court—where the defendant's criminal case was pending—that notified the court that the defendant ; and (4) a decree of the Hartford Probate Court dated December 26, 2013, denying the Institute of Living's application for involuntary commitment. The plaintiff objected to the motion, protesting that the defendant orchestrated his hospitalization and emergency commitment to delay the trial.
At a preliminary hearing on the motion, the court found that the seriousness of the defendant's alleged reason for his unavailability and the plaintiff's objection warranted the court's entry of a scheduling order providing for expedited discovery, the filing of exhibits and lists of witnesses by both parties, and an evidentiary hearing. The defendant responded by filing objections to the discovery of Probate Court records, his medical records, and his medical providers. The court sustained the objections.
At the evidentiary hearing on May 6, 2014, the defendant did not present any witnesses. His evidence consisted only of the four documents that had been attached to his motion to open, the motion itself, and a copy of General Statutes § 17a-500, which relates to commitment under an emergency certificate. The plaintiff did not present any evidence.
When the evidentiary hearing concluded, the court denied the defendant's motion to open the judgment, stating: "The truth is that this court simply does not know whether or not the defendant orchestrated his involuntary commitment . . . in order to delay the trial of his civil action." The court found that the defendant did not meet his burden to show reasonable cause for missing the trial because he did not testify; he did not call his sister to testify, the person who, according to the emergency certificate, had requested his commitment; he did not call any of his doctors to testify; and he did not allow any discovery of his medical records, the disclosure of the transcript and exhibits from the Probate Court proceeding in which the Probate Court denied the Institute of Living's application for the involuntary commitment of the defendant, or any other medical information.
The defendant appealed from the denial of his motion to open in AC 37079, and he appealed from the entry of the default judgment in AC 37080.
In his first appeal, AC 37079, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to open the default judgment. The defendant essentially claims that the court: (1) misunderstood the law governing involuntary...
To continue reading
Request your trial