Hart v. Hart, No. Cv02 039 41 58s (Jan. 14, 2003)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hart v. Hart, No. Cv02 039 41 58s (Jan. 14, 2003)

2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 522

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 14, 2003

DocketNo. CV02 039 41 58S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 522 (Hart v. Hart, No. Cv02 039 41 58s (Jan. 14, 2003)) 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

Hart v. Hart, No. Cv02 039 41 58s (Jan. 14, 2003), 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 522 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

SUMMARY RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM AND SPECIAL DEFENSES The plaintiff Karen Hart instituted this action seeking a partition of real property jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant William Hart. Pending before the court is the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant's counterclaim and special defenses on the ground that they fail to assert legally cognizable claims in a partition proceeding. In brief, the counterclaim and special defenses are based on the defendant's factual allegations that the partition action is inconsistent with the terms of a divorce decree and subsequent agreements between the parties. In ruling on the motion to strike, the court must assume the truth of these allegations. For the following reasons, the motion to strike is denied.

The plaintiff is mistaken about a court's authority to order a partition, on one hand, and the sanctity and enforceability of a property division under a divorce decree, on the other. If the property in question has not been sold in compliance with the divorce decree, than either appropriate motions may be filed with the divorce court, or a collateral action may be instituted to enforce the judgment. The plaintiff cannot use a partition action to avoid or circumvent the terms of a divorce decree that delineates the manner in which marital property is to be liquidated and divided. Basic principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata preclude such a result.

The plaintiffs reliance on Richards v. Richards, 67 Conn. App. 381 (2001) is misplaced because the court there found that the subsequent partition action was consistent with the terms of the divorce decree and was a situation likely anticipated by the decree. The other case relied on by the plaintiff, Fernandes v. Rodriquez, 225 Conn. 47 (2000), is also inapposite because the issues raised by the defendant in the counterclaim and special defenses here go to the heart of whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought by the complaint. CT Page 523

Therefore, the motion to strike is hereby denied.

So ordered 15th of January 2003.

___________________ STEVENS, JUDGE

CT Page 524

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.]

SUMMARY RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM AND SPECIAL DEFENSES The plaintiff Karen Hart instituted this action seeking a partition of real property jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant William Hart. Pending before the court is the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant's counterclaim and special defenses on the ground that they fail to assert legally cognizable claims in a partition proceeding. In brief, the counterclaim and special defenses are based on the defendant's factual allegations that the partition action is inconsistent with the terms of a divorce decree and subsequent agreements between the parties. In ruling on the motion to strike, the court must assume the truth of these allegations. For the following reasons, the motion to strike is denied.

The plaintiff is mistaken about a court's authority to order a partition, on one hand, and the sanctity and enforceability of a property division under a divorce decree, on the other. If the property in question has not been sold in compliance with the divorce decree, than either appropriate motions may be filed with the divorce court, or a collateral action may be instituted to enforce the judgment. The plaintiff cannot use a partition action to avoid or circumvent the terms of a divorce decree that delineates the manner in which marital property is to be liquidated and divided. Basic principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata preclude such a result.

The plaintiffs reliance on Richards v. Richards, 67 Conn. App. 381 (2001) is misplaced because the court there found that the subsequent partition action was consistent with the terms of the divorce decree and was a situation likely anticipated by the decree. The other case relied on by the plaintiff, Fernandes v. Rodriquez, 225 Conn. 47 (2000), is also inapposite because the issues raised by the defendant in the counterclaim and special defenses here go to the heart of whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought by the complaint. CT Page 523

Therefore, the motion to strike is hereby denied.

So ordered 15th of January 2003.

___________________ STEVENS, JUDGE

CT Page 524

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-hart-no-cv02-039-41-58s-jan-14-2003-connsuperct-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack