Dister Corp. v. Northco, Inc.

719 A.2d 485, 50 Conn. App. 764, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 421
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedNovember 3, 1998
DocketAC 17286
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 719 A.2d 485 (Dister Corp. v. Northco, Inc.) 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
Dister Corp. v. Northco, Inc., 719 A.2d 485, 50 Conn. App. 764, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 421 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover the proceeds of a cash bond posted as a court-ordered condition of dissolution of a mechanic’s lien that the plaintiff had filed on certain real property. On October 21, 1996, the named defendant was defaulted for failure to appear, and on February 28,1997, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $10,062.95 plus costs.

[765]*765The named defendant’s motion to open the judgment was denied from the bench by the trial court on May 19, 1997. The court denied the motion because it was not verified by the oath of the named defendant or its attorney, nor did it state in general terms the nature of the defense or show reasonable cause, or that a good defense existed at the time of the entry of the judgment. In addition, the named defendant failed to show that it was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from defending the action, all of which are required by General Statutes § 52-2121 and Practice Book § 17-43.2 The defendant now claims that the trial court improperly refused to open the judgment.

Connecticut courts have frequently refused to open judgments because of a delict in compliance with the [766]*766statute or rules of practice. We have previously held that when a defendant fails to comply with the provisions of § 52-212 and Practice Book § 17-43, the trial court properly may refuse to grant the defendant’s motion to open the judgment by default. Rocklen’s Auto Parts & Service, Inc. v. Rakiec, 6 Conn. App. 504, 506 A.2d 168 (1986).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Lawton v. Weiner
882 A.2d 151 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2005)
Lopez v. Livingston
731 A.2d 335 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
Bufferd v. Yost
719 A.2d 487 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
Coast Venture XXVX, Inc. v. Dister Corp.
719 A.2d 487 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
719 A.2d 485, 50 Conn. App. 764, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dister-corp-v-northco-inc-connappct-1998.