Coles v. Baker

Connecticut Appellate Court

Coles v. Baker

509 A.2d 1084, 7 Conn. App. 630, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1013

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 10, 1986

Docket4172

StatusPublished

This text of 509 A.2d 1084 (Coles v. Baker) 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.

Bluebook

Coles v. Baker, 509 A.2d 1084, 7 Conn. App. 630, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1013 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs¹ initiated this action claiming that the defendant wrongfully converted assets belonging to the decedent’s estate. From a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant pursuant to the report and findings of an attorney trial referee, the plaintiffs have appealed.

The referee made a detailed finding in a memorandum of decision and concluded that the decedent, Mary E. Baker, had made a completed inter vivos gift of [631]*631funds to the defendant. The plaintiffs challenge the judgment on the basis of the referee’s findings and conclusions.

With respect to the various claims of error relating to the merits of the referee’s factual findings, as well as the judgment rendered by the trial court on the basis of those findings, the plaintiffs are precluded from full appellate review by their failure to file a motion to correct the report of the referee, pursuant to Practice Book § 438, or their failure to file an objection to acceptance thereof, pursuant to Practice Book § 440. Because the plaintiff filed no such motion or objection, and because the facts found and the conclusions reached by the referee are adequate to support the judgment, the judgment must stand. Blessings Corporation v. Carolton Chronic & Convalescent Hospital, Inc., 7 Conn. App. 364, 367, 508 A.2d 829 (1986); Kowalsky Properties, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 7 Conn. App. 136, 140, 508 A.2d 43 (1986).

Litigants cannot completely ignore established procedures designed for the protection of their rights, as these plaintiffs have done, and expect to be entitled to full appellate review. We, therefore, decline to review the judgment of the trial court. Midland Ins. Co. v. Universal Technology, Inc., 199 Conn. 518, 521-22, 508 A.2d 427 (1986); Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 498, 508 A.2d 415 (1986); Harbor Construction Corporation v. D. V. Frione & Co., 158 Conn. 14, 20, 255 A.2d 823 (1969).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs¹ initiated this action claiming that the defendant wrongfully converted assets belonging to the decedent’s estate. From a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant pursuant to the report and findings of an attorney trial referee, the plaintiffs have appealed.

The referee made a detailed finding in a memorandum of decision and concluded that the decedent, Mary E. Baker, had made a completed inter vivos gift of [631]*631funds to the defendant. The plaintiffs challenge the judgment on the basis of the referee’s findings and conclusions.

With respect to the various claims of error relating to the merits of the referee’s factual findings, as well as the judgment rendered by the trial court on the basis of those findings, the plaintiffs are precluded from full appellate review by their failure to file a motion to correct the report of the referee, pursuant to Practice Book § 438, or their failure to file an objection to acceptance thereof, pursuant to Practice Book § 440. Because the plaintiff filed no such motion or objection, and because the facts found and the conclusions reached by the referee are adequate to support the judgment, the judgment must stand. Blessings Corporation v. Carolton Chronic & Convalescent Hospital, Inc., 7 Conn. App. 364, 367, 508 A.2d 829 (1986); Kowalsky Properties, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 7 Conn. App. 136, 140, 508 A.2d 43 (1986).

Litigants cannot completely ignore established procedures designed for the protection of their rights, as these plaintiffs have done, and expect to be entitled to full appellate review. We, therefore, decline to review the judgment of the trial court. Midland Ins. Co. v. Universal Technology, Inc., 199 Conn. 518, 521-22, 508 A.2d 427 (1986); Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 498, 508 A.2d 415 (1986); Harbor Construction Corporation v. D. V. Frione & Co., 158 Conn. 14, 20, 255 A.2d 823 (1969).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 A.2d 1084, 7 Conn. App. 630, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coles-v-baker-connappct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack