Home/Connecticut Appellate Court/LiVolsi v. Pylypchuk

LiVolsi v. Pylypchuk

532 A.2d 593, 12 Conn. App. 527, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 1103
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedOctober 27, 1987
Docket5278
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 532 A.2d 593 (LiVolsi v. Pylypchuk) 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
LiVolsi v. Pylypchuk, 532 A.2d 593, 12 Conn. App. 527, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 1103 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs1 brought this action to set aside the conveyance of real property by the decedent to the defendant. The case was referred to an attorney trial referee pursuant to General Statutes § 52-434 (a) (4). After trial, the attorney referee filed a report setting forth his findings and recommending that judgment should issue in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court accepting the report of the attorney trial referee, the defendant challenges two findings of the attorney trial referee.

Practice Book § 438 requires that a party challenging the factual findings of an attorney trial referee must file a motion to correct with the trial court within two weeks after the filing of the referee’s report. The defendant, however, failed to file such a motion in the present case. Having filed no motion to correct any of the facts found by the attorney trial referee, the defendant has waived any right to attack the subordinate factual findings contained in the report. Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 518, 508 A.2d 415 (1986); Kowalsky Properties, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 7 Conn. App. 136, 140, 508 A.2d 43 (1986); Ruhl v. Fairfield, 5 Conn. App. 104, 106, 496 A.2d 994 (1985). Furthermore, the defendant failed to object to the trial court’s acceptance of the report pursuant to Practice Book § 440 and, therefore, the conclusions reached in the report must stand. Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., supra. Accordingly, we decline to review the judgment of the trial court. Id.

There is no error.

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

Related

O'Connell, Flaherty & Attmore, LLC v. Doody
3 A.3d 969 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2010)
Landmark Builders, Inc. v. Brower, No. Cv95 0049114s (Mar. 23, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4004 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
McClain v. Byers, No. Cv 930301761s (May 6, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 4940 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Nichols v. Clark, No. 277623 (Dec. 17, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6720 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Standard Oil v. Southport Contracting, No. Cv92 029 74 67 S (Sep. 11, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5495-H (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Fleet Bank v. Brooks Development Corp., No. Cv90-318081 (Jun. 14, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4780 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Martino v. G M Excavating, Inc., No. Cv91-034924s (Feb. 3, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1322 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
Bernard v. Gershman
559 A.2d 1171 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1989)
Humiston v. Intervest Management Co.
554 A.2d 296 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1989)
Rostenberg-Doern Co. v. Weiner
552 A.2d 827 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1989)
Rowan Construction Corp. v. Hassane
549 A.2d 1085 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Wierzbicki v. Somers Builders, Inc.
543 A.2d 792 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Dorsen v. Kay
538 A.2d 1080 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
532 A.2d 593, 12 Conn. App. 527, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 1103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livolsi-v-pylypchuk-connappct-1987.