Matza v. Matza
Decision Date | 29 June 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 14605,14605 |
Citation | 627 A.2d 414,226 Conn. 166 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Richard A. MATZA v. Jane W. MATZA. |
Wesley W. Horton, with whom was Alexandra Davis, Hartford, for appellant-appellee (defendant).
William H. Narwold, with whom were Laura W. Ray, Hartford, William T. Fitzmaurice, Stamford, and, on the brief, C. Ian McLachlan, Hartford, for appellee-appellant (plaintiff).
Before PETERS, C.J., and BORDEN, BERDON, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The defendant, Jane W. Matza, appeals and the plaintiff, Richard A. Matza, cross appeals, upon our grant of certification, 1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, Hon. John Ottaviano, Jr., state trial referee, dissolving the parties' marriage, and ordered an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw as counsel filed by the defendant's attorney. The principal issues in this appeal are: (1) whether the trial court, Mihalakos, J., who ruled on the motion to withdraw improperly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on that motion; and (2) whether the trial referee, Hon. John Ottaviano, Jr., improperly drew an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to testify at trial. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the history of this protracted and tortuous litigation: "The underlying dissolution of marriage proceeding was commenced on June 14, 1988. Judgment was rendered on February 21, 1991, thirty-two months later. During the course of this action, three attorneys filed appearances on the defendant's behalf but subsequently withdrew their representation of her. The first, Gary I. Cohen, filed a motion to withdraw from the case in which he claimed that 'difficulties have arisen between counsel and client which make effective representation impossible.'
Matza v. Matza, 27 Conn.App. 769, 770-74, 610 A.2d 702 (1992).
The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court claiming, inter alia, that: (1) the judge who ruled on the motion to withdraw improperly refused to conduct an evidentiary hearing on that motion; and (2) the trial referee improperly drew an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to testify. The Appellate Court, having agreed with the defendant on the first claim, 2 remanded the case for a hearing on Sagarin's motion to withdraw. The Appellate Court's rescript provided that "if that motion is denied, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial; if the motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment is affirmed." Id., at 780, 610 A.2d 702. This appeal and cross appeal followed.
We first address the issue presented by the cross appeal. The plaintiff contends that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her attorney's motion to withdraw from the case. We agree. 3
It is useful to begin by clearing away those issues upon which resolution of this question does not depend. First, the facts of this case do not raise the question of whether a party to a dissolution proceeding has a right to have appointed counsel. Cf. Lavertue v. Niman, 196 Conn. 403, 493 A.2d 213 (1985). Second, the facts of this case do not raise the issue of whether an indigent party in a civil case is entitled to legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz and Schatz, Ribicoff and Kotkin, 15730
...breach of fiduciary duty. Although an attorney-client relationship imposes a fiduciary duty on the attorney; see Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166, 183-84, 627 A.2d 414 (1993); not every instance of professional negligence results in a breach of that fiduciary duty. "[A] fiduciary or confidenti......
-
Hornung v. Hornung
...considered the plaintiff's financial affidavit to accurately portray the standard of living of the marriage. Cf. Matza v. Matza , 226 Conn. 166, 185, 627 A.2d 414 (1993) (trial court explicitly stated that “parties did not during their marriage years enjoy a high standard of living as claim......
-
R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
...the parameters of its holding." Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc. , 298 Conn. 414, 424–25, 3 A.3d 919 (2010) ; see also Matza v. Matza , 226 Conn. 166, 187, 627 A.2d 414 (1993) ("[t]he two sentences upon which the defendant hangs her hat must be read in the context of the entire memorandum of dec......
-
Fisher Iii v. Big Y Foods Inc.
...be read as a whole, without particular portions read in isolation, to discern the parameters of its holding. See Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166, 187, 627 A.2d 414 (1993). In Kelly, the plaintiff had slipped and fallen on a piece of wet lettuce on the floor near what repeatedly was described ......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...234 Conn. 539 (1995) 2-10, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3 Matarese v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 158 F.2d 631 (2d Cir. 1946) 12-2 Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166 (1993) 1-11:1, 1-11:2, 2-3:3, 8-3:1 Matzkin v. Delaney, Zemetis, Donahue, Durham & Noonan, PC, No. CV044000288S, 2005 WL 2009277 (Conn. Super. Ct.......
-
Survey of 1993 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...Bar. **. Of the New Canaan Bar. 1. Mulholland v. Mulholland, 31 Conn. App. 214, cert. granted, 227 Conn. 905 (1993). 2. Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166 (1993), rev'g 27 Conn. App. 769 (1992). 3. See Ipbach v. Ibpach, 30 Conn. App. 912 (1993); Giotopulos v. Giotopulos, 30 Conn. App. 914 (1993)......
-
CHAPTER 8 - 8-3 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
...(2004) (citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted).[95] Andrews v. Gorby, 237 Conn. 12, 20 (1996) (quoting Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166, 184 (1993)); see also Beverly Hills Concepts v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48, 56 (1998).[96] Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v......
-
CHAPTER 2 - 2-3 CANDOR TO THE TRIBUNAL
...Prof'l Conduct R 3.3(a)(2).[58] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 3.3(a)(3); State v. Chambers, 296 Conn. 397 (2010). See Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166 (1993) for practice related to "noisy withdrawal" where lawyer believes client will engage in perjury.[59] Note that this rule applies to all......