Florence Virtue Homes, Inc. v. Nelson, No. Cvnh 9512-7276 (Mar. 5, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Florence Virtue Homes, Inc. v. Nelson, No. Cvnh 9512-7276 (Mar. 5, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 699

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 5, 1997

DocketNo. CVNH 9512-7276

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 699 (Florence Virtue Homes, Inc. v. Nelson, No. Cvnh 9512-7276 (Mar. 5, 1997)) 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

Florence Virtue Homes, Inc. v. Nelson, No. Cvnh 9512-7276 (Mar. 5, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 699 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER The court has no jurisdiction to grant the defendant's motion to open the judgment, since that motion was filed more than four months after the judgment was rendered. See General Statutes §§ 52-212, 52-212a.¹ "The mere negligence or inattention of a party is no ground for vacating a judgment. Parties are not justified in neglecting important legal matters merely because of the press or importance of other business and such negligence is ordinarily not excusable. See Motes v. Karzian Moving Storage,Inc., 31 Conn. Sup. 540, 542-43, 329 A.2d 624 (1974); EnglerInstrument Co. v. Design Productioneering Corporation, 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 393, 396-97, 215 A.2d 687 (1965)." Triton Associates v.Six New Corporation, 14 Conn. App. 172, 177, 540 A.2d 95, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 806 (1988).

The motion to modify the wage execution also is denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER The court has no jurisdiction to grant the defendant's motion to open the judgment, since that motion was filed more than four months after the judgment was rendered. See General Statutes §§ 52-212, 52-212a.¹ "The mere negligence or inattention of a party is no ground for vacating a judgment. Parties are not justified in neglecting important legal matters merely because of the press or importance of other business and such negligence is ordinarily not excusable. See Motes v. Karzian Moving Storage,Inc., 31 Conn. Sup. 540, 542-43, 329 A.2d 624 (1974); EnglerInstrument Co. v. Design Productioneering Corporation, 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 393, 396-97, 215 A.2d 687 (1965)." Triton Associates v.Six New Corporation, 14 Conn. App. 172, 177, 540 A.2d 95, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 806 (1988).

The motion to modify the wage execution also is denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florence-virtue-homes-inc-v-nelson-no-cvnh-9512-7276-mar-5-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack