Pryor v. Pryor

• Decision Date: 19 January 2016
• Docket Number: Nos. 36454,37425,37424.,36874,s. 36454
• Citation: 162 Conn.App. 451,133 A.3d 463
• Parties: Lynda PRYOR v. Edmond PRYOR.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

162 Conn.App. 451

133 A.3d 463

Lynda PRYOR

v.Edmond PRYOR.

Nos. 36454

37425

36874

37424.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 17, 2015.

Decided Jan. 19, 2016.

Edmond J. Pryor, self-represented, with whom, on the brief, was Jeanmarie A. Riccio, Bridgeport, for the appellant (defendant).

Yakov Pyetranker, with whom, on the brief, were Annmarie P. Briones and Gary I. Cohen, Bridgeport, for the appellee (plaintiff).

GRUENDEL, ALVORD and WEST, Js.

PER CURIAM.

These four appeals, consolidated by order of this court into two appeals, arise from postdissolution rulings by the trial court. In appeal AC 36454 and AC 36874, the defendant, Edmond Pryor, claims that the court improperly ordered him to list marital property located at Williamsbridge Road in Bronx, New York at $499,000, when the dissolution judgment required the court to use the average of two appraisals if the parties could not agree on a listing price.¹ In appeal AC 37424 and AC 37425, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to modify his alimony and child support obligations, (2) denied his motion to disqualify the presiding judge on the ground of judicial bias, and (3) granted the motion for counsel fees filed by the plaintiff, Lynda Pryor.² We dismiss as moot the appeal in AC 36454 and AC 36874, because the property at issue was sold to a third party in August, 2015. We decline to review the defendant's claims in AC 37424 and AC 37425 because they are inadequately briefed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in AC 37424 and AC 37425.

The parties were married in the state of New York on August 12, 1989. Three children were born of the marriage. The plaintiff commenced a dissolution of marriage action in 2008, and a judgment of dissolution was rendered by the court, Calmar, J., on July 14, 2010, after a contested trial.³ The judgment contained orders relating to, inter alia, alimony, child support and the disposition of the parties' marital property.

IAC 36454 and AC 36874

On June 12, 2013, the plaintiff filed a postdissolution motion for order regarding the listing, marketing and sale of the Williamsbridge Road property in New York. Following a hearing, the court issued a ruling on May 6, 2014, in which it ordered the subject property to be listed at $499,000 for ninety days. The court further ordered: "If the property is not sold within 90 days, the price shall be reduced by 5% every 90 days until the property is sold. The court also orders that a ‘for sale’ sign be posted outside of the property." The defendant appealed from the court's order on May 23, 2014.

On October 22, 2015, the defendant's attorney informed the appellate clerk's office that the subject property had been sold.⁴ By letter dated November 3, 2015, the appellate clerk's office advised counsel of record to be prepared to address at oral argument "whether the defendant's appeals from the trial court's order regarding a listing price for certain real property should be dismissed as moot because the subject property has now been sold. See Champagne v. Champagne, 85 Conn.App. 872, 876–78 (2004)

." At the time of oral argument the parties acknowledged that the property had been sold to a third party and that the closing had taken place in August, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the appeal relating to the listing price was moot and should be dismissed. The defendant claimed that Champagne was distinguishable from this case and that the appeal was not moot. We conclude that Champagne is dispositive of the defendant's claims and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal in AC 36454 and AC 36874 as moot.

"Mootness is a threshold issue that implicates subject matter jurisdiction, which imposes a duty on the court to dismiss a case if the court can no longer grant practical relief to the parties.... Mootness presents a circumstance wherein the issue before the court has been resolved or had lost its significance because of a change in the condition of affairs between the parties.... [T]he existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.... In determining mootness, the dispositive question is whether a successful appeal would benefit the plaintiff or defendant in any way." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kennedy v. Putman, 97 Conn.App. 815, 818, 905 A.2d 1280 (2006)

.

In Champagne v. Champagne, supra, 85 Conn.App. at 873–74, 859 A.2d 942

, the defendant filed two appeals from the trial court's judgment of dissolution and various postdissolution rulings, claiming that the court improperly issued certain orders pertaining to the method by which the parties' marital home would be sold. One of the claims that the defendant raised was that the trial court improperly awarded the plaintiff the sole authority to set the listing price for the marital home. Id., at 874, 859 A.2d 942. During the pendency of the appeals, the marital home was sold to a third party. Id., at 877, 859 A.2d 942. In light of this fact, this court held that the defendant's claims that concerned the sale of the marital home were moot. Id., at 878, 859 A.2d 942. It reasoned that because the marital home had been sold to a third party, it could not afford the defendant any practical relief regarding any orders that related to the method by which the marital home was to be sold. Id., at 877, 859 A.2d 942

; see also Morgan v. Morgan, 139 Conn.App. 808, 811–12, 57 A.3d 790 (2012)

(plaintiff's sale of real property to nonparty during pendency of appeal rendered moot her challenge to order requiring sale of property because sale could not be undone); Fiddelman v. Redmon, 59 Conn.App. 481, 483–84, 757 A.2d 671 (2000) (defendant's claim concerning method of selling marital home became moot because home was ultimately sold and closing took place).

Here, the defendant challenges the trial court's order regarding the method by which the subject property was to be sold. Because the subject property has now been sold and conveyed to a third party, this court will not be able to afford the defendant any practical relief regarding the method by which the property was to be sold. Accordingly, the appeal in AC 36454 and AC 36874 is dismissed as moot.

IIAC 37424 and AC 37425

In the defendant's second consolidated appeal, he claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to decrease the amount of his alimony and child support obligations, (2) denied his motion to disqualify the presiding judge on the ground of judicial bias, and (3) granted the plaintiff's motion for counsel fees. The defendant's brief is inadequate, and, thus, we decline to review his claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in AC 37424 and AC 37425.

On May 2, 2014, the defendant filed a postdissolution motion to modify his alimony and child support obligations. He requested a "downward modification" on the ground that his "income ha[d] drastically decreased." The court held a hearing on this motion, together with other pending motions, on November 5 and 12, 2014. Exhibits were admitted into evidence at that time. On December 3, 2014, the court issued its ruling denying the motion.⁵

At the time of the hearing held on November 5, 2014, the defendant filed a written motion to disqualify the presiding judge with an accompanying affidavit signed by the defendant.⁶ The court acknowledged its receipt, stated that it had reviewed the motion, represented that it had no bias or prejudice toward the defendant and denied the defendant's motion to disqualify from the bench.

In the court's December 3, 2014 order, it additionally ruled on the plaintiff's February 24, 2014 motion for counsel fees to defend the defendant's appeal from a prior ruling of the court on a postdissolution motion. The court granted the plaintiff's motion and ordered the defendant to pay $8886.07 to the plaintiff on or before December 22, 2014.

The defendant has challenged the court's rulings on these three postdissolution motions. The plaintiff argues that this court should not consider the defendant's claims because they are inadequately briefed for appellate review. We agree with the plaintiff.

Practice Book § 67–4

dictates the content and organization of an appellant's brief. The brief shall contain "[a] statement of the nature of the proceedings and of the facts of the case bearing on the issues raised. The statement of facts shall be in narrative form, shall be supported by appropriate references to the page or pages of the transcript or to the document upon which the party relies and shall not be unnecessarily detailed or voluminous." Practice Book § 67–4(c)

. Further, "[t]he argument [shall be] divided under appropriate headings into as many parts as there are points to be presented, with appropriate references to the statement of facts or to the page or pages of the transcript or to the relevant document. The argument on each point shall include a separate, brief statement of the standard of review the appellant believes should be applied." Practice Book § 67–4(d).

"It is well settled that [w]e are not required to review claims that are inadequately briefed.... We consistently have held that [a]nalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.... [F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal ... the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of a trial court on the basis of challenges to its rulings that have not been adequately briefed.... The parties may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited.... [A]ssignments of error which are merely mentioned but not briefed beyond a statement of the claim...