Diaz v. Edwards, No. Cv80 0190173s (Jul. 26, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Diaz v. Edwards, No. Cv80 0190173s (Jul. 26, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5860

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 26, 1991

DocketNo. CV80 0190173S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5860 (Diaz v. Edwards, No. Cv80 0190173s (Jul. 26, 1991)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diaz v. Edwards, No. Cv80 0190173s (Jul. 26, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5860 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant's Motion to Reopen the Judgment of August 30, 1982 is hereby denied.

The lack of demonstrated compliance with Connecticut Practice Book 354 serves to extend the four month time period within which the defendants may seek to set aside the judgment against them. DiSimeone v. Vitello, 6 Conn. App. 390 (1986). That section does nothing however to alter the two part test set forth in Connecticut Practice Book 377 and Connecticut General Statutes 52-212 (b) which determines when a motion to reopen can be granted. As pronounced therein, the aggrieved party must demonstrate

1. That a good defense existed at the time judgment was rendered and

2. That the party seeking to disturb the judgment was prevented from making that defense because of mistake, accident or other reasonable cause.

CT Page 5861

Pantlin and Chananie Development Corp. v. Hartford Cement and Building Supply Company, 196 Conn. 233 (1985) and Triton Associates vs. 6 New Corporation, Et Al, 17 Conn. App. 172 (1988).

As the evidence clearly establishes, the defendant involved herein received the true and attested copy of the original writ, summons and complaint that had been deposited at his Post Office Box 4073, Bridgeport, Connecticut. He signed the receipt for said documents, but has no independent recollection of having done so or of opening the envelope containing said documents. Nevertheless, they were received by him and his decisions not to file an appearance, retain counsel, present a defense, etc. are ones for which only he can assume responsibility. Those choices were knowingly, if not intelligently made and do not come within the guidelines of the Practice Book and Statute that allow for the reopening of a judgment.

KATZ, JUDGE

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant's Motion to Reopen the Judgment of August 30, 1982 is hereby denied.

The lack of demonstrated compliance with Connecticut Practice Book 354 serves to extend the four month time period within which the defendants may seek to set aside the judgment against them. DiSimeone v. Vitello, 6 Conn. App. 390 (1986). That section does nothing however to alter the two part test set forth in Connecticut Practice Book 377 and Connecticut General Statutes 52-212 (b) which determines when a motion to reopen can be granted. As pronounced therein, the aggrieved party must demonstrate

1. That a good defense existed at the time judgment was rendered and

2. That the party seeking to disturb the judgment was prevented from making that defense because of mistake, accident or other reasonable cause.

CT Page 5861

Pantlin and Chananie Development Corp. v. Hartford Cement and Building Supply Company, 196 Conn. 233 (1985) and Triton Associates vs. 6 New Corporation, Et Al, 17 Conn. App. 172 (1988).

As the evidence clearly establishes, the defendant involved herein received the true and attested copy of the original writ, summons and complaint that had been deposited at his Post Office Box 4073, Bridgeport, Connecticut. He signed the receipt for said documents, but has no independent recollection of having done so or of opening the envelope containing said documents. Nevertheless, they were received by him and his decisions not to file an appearance, retain counsel, present a defense, etc. are ones for which only he can assume responsibility. Those choices were knowingly, if not intelligently made and do not come within the guidelines of the Practice Book and Statute that allow for the reopening of a judgment.

KATZ, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-edwards-no-cv80-0190173s-jul-26-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack