Ertel v. Demmon

Connecticut Appellate Court

Ertel v. Demmon

887 A.2d 949, 93 Conn. App. 115, 2006 Conn. App. LEXIS 14

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

DocketAC 26104

StatusPublished

This text of 887 A.2d 949 (Ertel v. Demmon) 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

Ertel v. Demmon, 887 A.2d 949, 93 Conn. App. 115, 2006 Conn. App. LEXIS 14 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Peter H. Ertel, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to open the court’s judgment, which did not contain an award of prejudgment interest.¹ The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Our law makes clear that the opening of a judgment is entirely within the discretion of the trial court. See Moore v. Brancard, 89 Conn. App. 129, 131, 872 A.2d 909 (2005). We note, however, that “[although the opening of a judgment properly rendered is a discre[116]*116tionary act of the court ... a judgment improperly rendered, as a matter of law, must be set aside.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. St. John, 80 Conn. App. 767, 774, 837 A.2d 841 (2004). In this instance, there is no evidence in the record to support the contention that the court improperly denied the plaintiffs request for prejudgment interest, and the plaintiff has failed to file a motion for articulation to perfect the record. See Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656, 688-89, 757 A.2d 1225, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 918, 763 A.2d 1044 (2000); Practice Book § 66-5. Thus, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to open the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Peter H. Ertel, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to open the court’s judgment, which did not contain an award of prejudgment interest.¹ The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Our law makes clear that the opening of a judgment is entirely within the discretion of the trial court. See Moore v. Brancard, 89 Conn. App. 129, 131, 872 A.2d 909 (2005). We note, however, that “[although the opening of a judgment properly rendered is a discre[116]*116tionary act of the court ... a judgment improperly rendered, as a matter of law, must be set aside.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. St. John, 80 Conn. App. 767, 774, 837 A.2d 841 (2004). In this instance, there is no evidence in the record to support the contention that the court improperly denied the plaintiffs request for prejudgment interest, and the plaintiff has failed to file a motion for articulation to perfect the record. See Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656, 688-89, 757 A.2d 1225, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 918, 763 A.2d 1044 (2000); Practice Book § 66-5. Thus, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to open the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

887 A.2d 949, 93 Conn. App. 115, 2006 Conn. App. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ertel-v-demmon-connappct-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack