Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1985
• Citation: 494 A.2d 549,196 Conn. 517
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: J.E. VAN MECKLENBURG v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC.

Page 549

494 A.2d 549

196 Conn. 517

J.E. VAN MECKLENBURG v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 7, 1985.

Decided June 25, 1985.

Leslie Szilagyi, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Mark R. Carta, Greenwich, with whom, on the brief, was Michael J. Jones, Greenwich, for appellee (defendant).

Before PETERS, C.J., and HEALEY, SHEA, DANNEHY and SANTANIELLO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In December of 1977, the plaintiff, Johannes Van Mecklenburg, instituted suit against the defendant, Pan American World Airways, Inc., to recover damages arising from an alleged breach of a charter contract. On December 3, 1979, the trial court dismissed the case on its own motion pursuant to Practice Book § 251, for failure to prosecute with diligence. The plaintiff timely filed a motion to open judgment, which the trial court granted on June 23, 1980.

On June 11, 1982, the trial court again dismissed the action pursuant to § 251. The plaintiff filed a motion to open the judgment of dismissal on October 8, 1982, but failed to pay the accompanying filing fee. Although the trial court clerk who handled the motion stamped it as received by the court on October 8, upon realizing that the required fee had not been paid, the clerk crossed out the October 8 receipt date on the face of the motion and immediately returned it to the plaintiff. On October 15 the plaintiff refiled the motion and paid the fee. The trial court, Satter, J., opened the June 11, 1982 judgment dismissing the case despite the defendant's objection that the motion as refiled was untimely and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction.

In a memorandum of decision issued after a trial on the merits, the court, Gaffney, J., found the substantive issues for the defendant, and also found that, in any event, the plaintiff lacked standing to sue on the contract. The plaintiff sought review of the trial court's decision in the Appellate Court. We transferred the case to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 3004A. We find error.

"Unless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, any civil judgment ... rendered in the superior court may not be opened ... unless a motion to open ... is filed within four months succeeding the date on which it was rendered or passed." General Statutes § 52-212a; Practice Book § 326. Unless the parties waive this time limitation, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to open filed more than four months after a decision is rendered. Celanese Fiber v. Pic Yarns, Inc., 184 Conn. 461, 465, 440 A.2d 159 (1981); see Misinonile v. Misinonile, 190 Conn. 132, 134, 459 A.2d 518 (1983). The present action was dismissed by the trial court on June 11, 1982. The plaintiff did not file a motion to open the judgment until October 15, 1982, more than four months later. Under the...