Gardner v. Falvey, AC
| Citation | 45 Conn.App. 699,697 A.2d 711 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. AC,AC |
| Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | Robert GARDNER v. Maureen FALVEY. 15237. |
Michael R. Hasse, with whom were Matthew Greene, New London, and, on the brief, Richard T. Miller, Stamford, for appellant (defendant).
Nancy M. O'Neil, Norwich, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before FOTI, SCHALLER and HARRIGAN, JJ.
This appeal arises out of an action for adjudication of paternity and visitation rights. The defendant appeals from the order of the trial court granting three hours of unsupervised visitation per week to the plaintiff. The sole issue raised by the defendant is whether the trial court abused its discretion by not appointing an attorney for the minor child. Although the appeal form states that the appeal is from the "Motion for Visitation," the defendant challenges the trial court's denial of her oral motion to appoint an attorney for the minor child made at the hearing on the visitation motion. We conclude that, because the trial court granted a motion for reargument filed by the defendant on this issue, but never heard the reargument, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of a final judgment.
The parties, who never married, had one child in 1988. The plaintiff, Robert Gardner, filed a complaint seeking an adjudication of paternity and both pendente lite and permanent visitation. On August 3, 1995, the defendant filed a motion for custody pendente lite, which was granted by the trial court after a hearing on visitation held on September 18, 1995. At the conclusion of all of the testimony, but before the trial court ruled on the visitation schedule, the defendant moved the court to appoint an attorney for the child. The trial court indicated that it did not need to hear closing arguments to decide the issue of visitation. The trial court orally denied the defendant's motion to appoint counsel for the minor child and awarded the plaintiff three hours of unsupervised visitation per week. That judgment of unsupervised visitation pendente lite of September 18, 1995, is the judgment being appealed.
The defendant filed the appeal on September 27, 1995. One day later, on September 28, she filed a motion for reargument of the plaintiff's motion for visitation, claiming in the body of the motion that her motion for the appointment of counsel for the child was improperly denied. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for reargument. No reargument, however, ever occurred. Subsequently, the parties filed several other motions. The defendant filed a motion for stay of execution of the visitation order on September 28, 1995, until reargument on the plaintiff's motion for visitation, which the trial court denied. On October 10, 1995, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment of paternity. On October 20, 1995, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt and a motion for attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion for judgment of paternity was granted in accordance with a stipulation made by the parties dated November 6, 1995. 1 The stipulation provided that, in addition to the visitation ordered by the court, the parties would meet with a therapist once a week in order to facilitate visitation. The stipulation, however, does not make any mention of the claim regarding counsel for the minor child, or of the motion for reargument of the plaintiff's motion for visitation, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paniccia v. Success Vill. Apartments, Inc.
...the parties to file memoranda on or before January 13, 2022, limited to two issues: "(1) [Whether] the rationale of Gardner v. Falvey , 45 Conn. App. 699, (1997), requires dismissal of this appeal for lack of a final judgment because the trial court granted reargument, but the motion to rea......
-
Paniccia v. Success Vill. Apartments, Inc.
...because the trial court granted reargument, but the motion to reargue had not been decided at the time the appeal was filed [and] (2) [i]f Gardner controls, this court [should] consider the case en banc and overrule Gardner." On February 17, 2022, after the parties filed their memoranda, th......
-
Lambert v. Donahue
...19, 2000. As of the date of oral argument on the plaintiffs appeal, the evidentiary hearing had not been held. In Gardner v. Falvey, 45 Conn. App. 699, 697 A.2d 711 (1997), the trial court rendered a final judgment, and a proper appeal was taken. Thereafter, a motion to reargue was filed wi......