Kulmacz v. Kulmacz
| Decision Date | 01 May 1979 |
| Citation | 418 A.2d 76,177 Conn. 410 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Lydia C. KULMACZ v. Bruno F. KULMACZ. |
Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was William R. Moller, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Gary A. Friedle, New Britain, for appellee (defendant Jean R. Buzanoski, temporary administratrix, estate of Bruno F. Kulmacz).
Before LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO, SPEZIALE and PETERS, JJ.
The basic issue presented by the plaintiff on this appeal is the question of which of two dates was the effective date of a decree of divorce granted to the plaintiff from the defendant. The determination of this question could possibly decide the admissibility of a will that the defendant executed between the two dates, because a will may be revoked by a subsequent divorce. See General Statutes § 45-162(b). We do not reach this issue, however, because of our conclusion that the plaintiff is not an aggrieved party legally capable of appealing the decisions of the referee and the trial court in this case.
The plaintiff Lydia C. Kulmacz and the defendant Bruno F. Kulmacz were married in 1946. The couple had two children, born in 1951 and in 1955. The plaintiff filed for divorce on June 28, 1971. A divorce was granted thereafter, but it is disputed as to whether the decree of divorce was entered on July 19, 1972, during a hearing before the state trial referee (Googel, J.) or on November 13, 1972, after a "conference," when the referee signed the judgment file and filed the memorandum of decision. The defendant executed a will on August 3, 1972, after the July 19 hearing but before the filing of the judgment and memorandum of decision on November 13. The will excluded the plaintiff and the two children of the marriage; instead, the defendant divided his estate among his three siblings. The will named Jean R. Buzanoski, the defendant's sister, as executrix.
The defendant died May 23, 1977, and on June 13, 1977, Jean Buzanoski (hereinafter "Jean") was appointed temporary administratrix of the defendant's estate. Jean sought and obtained (A. Armentano, J.) substitution of herself as a party to the divorce in order to "correct" the dates in the judgment file, and thereupon filed a motion to correct. On June 1, 1978, the referee (Googel, J.) changed the dates in the file to reflect the date of the hearing, July 19, 1972, and held that "the plaintiff was granted a divorce from the defendant on the ground of intolerable cruelty on July 19, 1972." As a legal consequence, that decision meant that the will of August 3, 1972, was not revoked by the divorce and, barring other infirmities, could be admitted for probate. The plaintiff appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court (A. Armentano, J.) erred in allowing the substitution of Jean as a party to the divorce, and that the trial referee (Googel, J.) erred in changing the dates on the judgment file and memorandum of decision.
A threshold inquiry of this court upon every appeal presented to it is the question of appellate jurisdiction. Liistro v. Robinson, 170 Conn. 116, 121-22, 365 A.2d 109, 111 (1976); Jensen v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 150 Conn. 56, 58-59, 185 A.2d 77 (1962); Waterbury Trust Co. v. Porter, 130 Conn. 494, 498, 35 A.2d 837, 839 (1944); 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal & Error, § 178. Although not raised by any party to this appeal, the issue of jurisdiction may be examined by this court on its own motion. LaReau v. Reincke, 158 Conn. 486, 494, 264 A.2d 576 (1969); Foss v. Foss, 105 Conn. 502, 512, 136 A. 98 (1927). A requisite element of appealability is that the party claiming error in the decision of the trial court be aggrieved; General Statutes § 52-263; Practice Book, 1978, § 3000; Rollins v. Holcomb, 122 Conn. 664, 666, 190 A. 260 (1937); Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., §§ 6-7; for "if a party attempting to appeal can by no possibility suffer injury by the judgment, he should not be permitted to appeal." Waterbury Trust Co. v. Porter, supra. There are few exceptions to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Principals' and Supervisors' Ass'n v. Shedd
...the issue of jurisdiction may be examined by this court on its own motion. 2 Practice Book § 3110 (now § 4056); Kulmacz v. Kulmacz, 177 Conn. 410, 412, 418 A.2d 76 (1979); LaReau v. Reincke, 158 Conn. 486, 494, 264 A.2d 576 "The law recognizes that the actions of parties themselves, by sett......
-
Sullivan v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Waterbury
...have raised them in their pleadings. Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac, 194 Conn. 677, 678-79 n. 1, 485 A.2d 1272 (1984); Kulmacz v. Kulmacz, 177 Conn. 410, 412, 418 A.2d 76 (1979); LaReau v. Reincke, 158 Conn. 486, 494, 264 A.2d 576 (1969); Foss v. Foss, 105 Conn. 502, 512, 136 A. 98 (1927). In thi......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Crawford
...if the party seeking review is in a class whose interests are capable of repetition, yet evading review. See Kulmacz v. Kulmacz , 177 Conn. 410, 412–13, 418 A.2d 76 (1979) ("A requisite element of appealability is that the party claiming error in the decision of the trial court be aggrieved......
-
Housing Authority of City of Stamford v. Lamothe
...222 Conn. 294, 297, 608 A.2d 1181 (1992); Sadlowski v. Manchester, 206 Conn. 579, 583, 538 A.2d 1052 (1988); Kulmacz v. Kulmacz, 177 Conn. 410, 412, 418 A.2d 76 (1979). Following the Appellate Court's affirmance of the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to open the stipulated ju......