Ravizza v. Waldie, 2714
| Decision Date | 09 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 2714,2714 |
| Citation | 490 A.2d 90,3 Conn.App. 491 |
| Parties | Ronald RAVIZZA et al. v. Anna WALDIE et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Joseph R. Lupica, with whom, on the brief, was James G. Green, Jr., Hartford, for the appellants (defendants).
Edith S. Rosen, Bloomfield, with whom, on the brief, was Samuel J. Henderson, Hartford, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Before DUPONT, C.P.J., and CALLAHAN and CIOFFI, JJ.
The issue in this case is what constitutes a clerical error in a judgment. The plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title to a parcel of land in the town of Cromwell. The defendants counterclaimed, claiming title by adverse possession as to a portion of the parcel. The trial court quieted title in the plaintiffs except as to a portion of the parcel which the court found belonged to the defendants by way of adverse possession. In its memorandum of decision dated January 13, 1982, the trial court stated:
A judgment file was prepared and signed by the clerk. Although it mentioned the red line, it did not refer to "approximately eight acres." No appeal from this judgment was taken by either party. In the summer of 1982, the parties jointly hired a surveyor to establish formal boundary lines in accordance with the trial court's decision. The surveyor informed the parties that he could not complete his task as ordered because the memorandum of decision described the parcel as consisting of "approximately eight acres" while the parcel designated by the trial court's diagram on the plaintiffs' exhibit Z consisted of only five acres. Upon learning of this supposed discrepancy, the defendants on September 23, 1983, filed a motion to correct clerical error in judgment. The thrust of the defendants' argument in support of their motion was that, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, the trial court made a mistake in drawing the line on exhibit Z, which only encompassed five acres, and should correct itself and redraw the line to give title to the defendants to a larger portion of the disputed land. The trial court denied the motion and the defendants appeal therefrom, claiming an abuse of discretion.
In a decision dated October 24, 1983, the court stated that it had based its original decision on the "use of a given piece of land within the disputed area." (Emphasis added.) In addition, the court stated: "This motion claimed to be a motion to correct a clerical error and required in reality a complete retrial of the case." It is clear that the trial court intentionally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vasquez v. Superior Court
...& Zoning Commission, 34 Conn.App. 685, 689, 642 A.2d 1220, cert. denied, 230 Conn. 916, 645 A.2d 1018 (1994); Ravizza v. Waldie, 3 Conn.App. 491, 493, 490 A.2d 90 (1985). The judgment of summary criminal contempt is affirmed. The case is remanded for correction of the judgment file to confo......
-
Maguire v. Maguire
...but involves the failure to preserve or correctly represent in the record the actual decision of the court." Ravizza v. Waldie, 3 Conn.App. 491, 493, 490 A.2d 90 (1985). In other words, it is clerical error if " 'the judgment as recorded fails to agree with the judgment in fact rendered..........
-
LaPre v. Nibo Films, Ltd.
...to preserve or correctly represent in the record the actual decision of the court. 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments § 202." Ravizza v. Waldie, 3 Conn.App. 491, 493, 490 A.2d 90 (1985).5 See General Statutes § 7-31 for requirements pertaining to the filing of maps of surveys and plots on land records......
-
Cusano v. Burgundy Chevrolet, Inc.
...preserve or correctly represent in the record the actual decision of the court. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 202. Ravizza v. Waldie, 3 Conn. App. 491, 493, 490 A.2d 90 (1985)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bottass v. Bottass, supra, 40 Conn. App. Our review of the record reveals that ......