White v. White
| Decision Date | 27 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 14779,14779 |
| Citation | 680 A.2d 1368,42 Conn.App. 747 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Suzanne L. WHITE v. Thomas A. WHITE. |
Dianne M. Andersen, Danbury, with whom, on the brief, was Susan Williams, for appellant (defendant).
Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, Simsbury, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before FOTI, LAVERY and LANDAU, JJ.
The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiff stated a claim under General Statutes § 46b-70, and (2) declined to consider the issue of the applicable statute of limitations in the defendant's motion to strike. We conclude that the denial of a motion to strike is not a final and appealable judgment and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
The pleadings and other documentary information presented to the trial court reveal the following facts. On October 12, 1994, the plaintiff filed a two count complaint against the defendant to recover past due child support. In the first count, the plaintiff alleges that on June 17, 1975, a New York state court rendered judgment dissolving the parties' marriage and ordered the defendant to pay $50 per week in child support. The defendant did not appear in those proceedings, and the judgment was entered on default. On December 13, 1984, the Family Court of the state of New York modified the child support judgment to $100 per month due to the emancipation of one of the children. The Family Court's judgment indicates that the defendant appeared before the court in the support modification proceeding. The plaintiff claims that the judgment and subsequent order are valid, binding and final under the laws of the state of New York, have not been appealed or vacated and are entitled to full faith and credit in Connecticut. In the second count, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant has failed to pay $216,738.80 in child support.
On November 21, 1994, the defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The defendant claimed that (1) the New York judgment cannot be rendered valid under General Statutes § 46b-70 because he did not appear in the divorce, (2) the plaintiff has failed to reduce any child support arrearage to a final money judgment in order for it to be subject to full faith and credit under Connecticut law and (3) the plaintiff's action is barred by the New York statute of limitations.
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to strike. The trial court found that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts demonstrating that the defendant appeared in the December 13, 1984 support proceeding. The court also held that the defendant's statute of limitations claim must be pleaded as a special defense, not raised in a motion to strike. The court concluded that the plaintiff stated a claim on which relief could be granted. This appeal followed.
As a threshold matter, we must first consider the question of whether this appeal is properly before us. "Because our jurisdiction over appeals, both criminal and civil, is prescribed by statute, we must always determine the threshold question of whether the appeal is taken from a final judgment before considering the merits of the claim." State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 30, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). "Limiting appeals to judgments that are final serves the important public policy of minimizing interference with and delay in the resolution of trial court proceedings." Madigan v. Madigan, 224 Conn. 749, 752-53, 620 A.2d 1276 (1993).
Although a trial court's decision on a motion to strike is an interlocutory order, our Supreme Court has determined State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Supple
... ... v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300 ... Conn. 325, 328 n.3, 15 A.3d 601 (2011) (motion for summary ... judgment); White v. White, 42 Conn.App. 747, 749, ... 680 A.2d 1368 (1996) (motion to strike) ... The ... constitutional nature ... ...
-
Matey v. Estate of Dember
...to final judgments serves the public policy of minimizing delay and interference with trial court proceedings. White v. White, 42 Conn.App. 747, 749, 680 A.2d 1368 (1996). Additionally, the final judgment requirement functions to avoid piecemeal appeals. Melfi v. Danbury, 38 Conn.App. 466, ......
-
Palosz v. Town of Greenwich
...denial of a motion to strike is interlocutory and, thus, generally not a final judgment for purposes of appeal; White v. White , 42 Conn. App. 747, 749, 680 A.2d 1368 (1996) ; the denial of a motion filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity is an immediately appealable f......
-
Campbell v. Plymouth
...distinct proceeding nor concludes the rights of the parties so that further proceedings could not affect them." White v. White, 42 Conn. App. 747, 749, 680 A.2d 1368 (1996); see also Costecski v. Skarulis, 103 Conn. 762, 762-63, 131 A. 398 (1925) (holding no final judgment when case remains......
-
1995 and 1996 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...42 Conn. App. 583 (1996) (Americans with Disabilities Act). 125 Denley v. Denley, 38 Conn. App. 349 (1995). 126 White v. White, 42 Conn. App. 747 (1996) (denial of a motion to strike a complaint which sought child support under a foreign judgment is not a final judt ment); Cruz v. Gonzalez,......