Beard v. Beard

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Beard v. Beard

357 A.2d 465, 168 Conn. 53, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 922

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 25, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 357 A.2d 465 (Beard v. Beard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beard v. Beard, 357 A.2d 465, 168 Conn. 53, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 922 (Colo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These four eases were consolidated by stipulation in open court and on April 4, 1973, the court rendered judgment on all four cases, following a stipulation by the parties which was approved by the court. By motion filed September 13, 1973, and amended September 14, 1973, the *54 defendants moved to open and set aside the judgment. The court denied this motion and the defendants appealed to this court from that denial.

The decision of this* court in Poneleit v. Dudas, 141 Conn. 413, 416-17, 106 A.2d 479, is dispositive of the merits of the appeal. As that ease reiterated: “ tit is well settled that, unless proceedings looMng to modification of a judgment are started before the expiration of the term of court at which it was entered, a court has no power to modify it in matters of substance, as distinguished from the correction of clerical errors, after the expiration of the term, except by consent or waiver of the parties or in proceedings for a new trial,’ ” and added: “As the term of court during which the judgment was rendered had expired at the time the motion to open the judgment was filed, the trial court did not have the power to grant it and did not err in denying it.”

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

These four eases were consolidated by stipulation in open court and on April 4, 1973, the court rendered judgment on all four cases, following a stipulation by the parties which was approved by the court. By motion filed September 13, 1973, and amended September 14, 1973, the *54 defendants moved to open and set aside the judgment. The court denied this motion and the defendants appealed to this court from that denial.

The decision of this* court in Poneleit v. Dudas, 141 Conn. 413, 416-17, 106 A.2d 479, is dispositive of the merits of the appeal. As that ease reiterated: “ tit is well settled that, unless proceedings looMng to modification of a judgment are started before the expiration of the term of court at which it was entered, a court has no power to modify it in matters of substance, as distinguished from the correction of clerical errors, after the expiration of the term, except by consent or waiver of the parties or in proceedings for a new trial,’ ” and added: “As the term of court during which the judgment was rendered had expired at the time the motion to open the judgment was filed, the trial court did not have the power to grant it and did not err in denying it.”

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 A.2d 465, 168 Conn. 53, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-v-beard-conn-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack