Bufferd v. Yost
This text of 719 A.2d 487 (Bufferd v. Yost) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[2]*2 Opinion
The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to open a judgment of nonsuit that was rendered on July 1,1996. On November 7, 1996, the plaintiff moved to open the judgment of nonsuit. In response, the defendant filed an objection to the motion, claiming that (1) it was filed more than four months after the entry of the nonsuit, (2) it was not verified by the plaintiff or his attorney, (3) it did not state in general terms the nature of the plaintiffs claim, (4) it did not show reasonable cause or that a good cause of action existed at the time of the entry of the judgment against him and (5) the plaintiff failed to show that he was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from prosecuting the action.
The trial court clerk noted on the defendants’ objection that it was sustained, but inconsistently noted on the motion to open that it was granted. When these conflicting notations were brought to the attention of the trial court, the trial court issued an order vacating the granting of the motion to open and denying the motion, explaining that it had always been the court’s intention to sustain the defendants’ objection and to deny the motion to open. This is the plaintiffs appeal from the denial of his motion to open the judgment of nonsuit. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to open.
Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-212,1 a motion to set aside a judgment of nonsuit must be filed within [3]*3four months of the date judgment was rendered. The trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to open the judgment filed outside that four month period. Serrano v. Behar, 15 Conn. App. 308, 311, 544 A.2d 250 (1988). The motion in this case was untimely. Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The trial court, however, could make clerical corrections. DiSimone v. Vitello, 6 Conn. App. 390, 392, 505 A.2d 745 (1986).
Additionally, we point out that the form of the motion was procedurally defective in that it did not comply with § 52-212 or Practice Book § 17-43.* 2 We have previously held that when a defendant fails to comply with [4]*4these requirements, the trial court may properly refuse to grant the motion to open a judgment by default. Dister Corp. v. Northco, Inc., 50 Conn. App. 764, 719 A.2d 485 (1998); Rocklen’s Auto Parts & Service, Inc. v. Rakiec, 6 Conn. App. 504, 506 A.2d 168 (1986).
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
719 A.2d 487, 51 Conn. App. 1, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bufferd-v-yost-connappct-1998.