Humiston v. Intervest Management Co.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Humiston v. Intervest Management Co.

554 A.2d 296, 17 Conn. App. 828, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 51

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1989

Docket6436

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 554 A.2d 296 (Humiston v. Intervest Management Co.) 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

Humiston v. Intervest Management Co., 554 A.2d 296, 17 Conn. App. 828, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This wrongful discharge and defamation action was heard by an attorney trial referee who issued a detailed report with twenty-nine separate findings of fact and eight pages of legal analysis. The legal analysis thoroughly reviewed Connecticut law of both wrongful discharge and defamation. The plaintiff then moved the trial court to correct the report pursuant to Practice Book § 438 and in this motion belatedly raised the issue of the applicability of California law to his relationship with the defendant. Thereafter, the [829]*829trial referee issued a supplemental report recommending the denial of the plaintiffs motion to correct and rejecting the plaintiffs assertion that California law should apply.

The trial court denied the motion to correct and accepted the referee’s report. In doing so, the trial court prepared a memorandum of decision in which it carefully reviewed the evidence, the findings and legal analysis of the trial referee, the plaintiff’s motion to correct and the supplemental report.

Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to review further the judgment of the trial court. Following the supplemental report of the trial referee, the plaintiff failed to file either an exception to the report pursuant to Practice Book § 439 or objections to acceptance of the report pursuant to Practice Book § 440. The lack of compliance with the procedural requisites necessary to preserve challenges to an attorney trial referee’s report precludes appellate review by this court. See, e.g., Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 508 A.2d 415 (1986); Dorsen v. Kay, 13 Conn. App. 645, 538 A.2d 1080, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 805, 545 A.2d 1102 (1988); LiVolsi v. Pylypchuk, 12 Conn. App. 527, 532 A.2d 593 (1987).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This wrongful discharge and defamation action was heard by an attorney trial referee who issued a detailed report with twenty-nine separate findings of fact and eight pages of legal analysis. The legal analysis thoroughly reviewed Connecticut law of both wrongful discharge and defamation. The plaintiff then moved the trial court to correct the report pursuant to Practice Book § 438 and in this motion belatedly raised the issue of the applicability of California law to his relationship with the defendant. Thereafter, the [829]*829trial referee issued a supplemental report recommending the denial of the plaintiffs motion to correct and rejecting the plaintiffs assertion that California law should apply.

The trial court denied the motion to correct and accepted the referee’s report. In doing so, the trial court prepared a memorandum of decision in which it carefully reviewed the evidence, the findings and legal analysis of the trial referee, the plaintiff’s motion to correct and the supplemental report.

Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to review further the judgment of the trial court. Following the supplemental report of the trial referee, the plaintiff failed to file either an exception to the report pursuant to Practice Book § 439 or objections to acceptance of the report pursuant to Practice Book § 440. The lack of compliance with the procedural requisites necessary to preserve challenges to an attorney trial referee’s report precludes appellate review by this court. See, e.g., Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 508 A.2d 415 (1986); Dorsen v. Kay, 13 Conn. App. 645, 538 A.2d 1080, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 805, 545 A.2d 1102 (1988); LiVolsi v. Pylypchuk, 12 Conn. App. 527, 532 A.2d 593 (1987).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 A.2d 296, 17 Conn. App. 828, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humiston-v-intervest-management-co-connappct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack