Matza v. Matza, No. Fa88 0272034 (Jan. 9, 1996)
This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 131 (Matza v. Matza, No. Fa88 0272034 (Jan. 9, 1996)) 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.
Opinion
By written stipulation between the parties dated December 12, 1995, the judgment was reopened, on the basis of mutual mistake, and further stipulated orders were made. Those included a provision that 67 Deer Run Road, Woodbridge was ordered the property of the defendant, not the plaintiff. (The parties indicated on the record that the numbers of the two properties on Deer Run Road had been mistakenly `swapped').
The parties are unable to agree as to which party is responsible for the payment of the real estate taxes on the 67 Deer Run Road, Woodbridge property. The taxes at issue are for the Grand List of October 1, 1991 (payable July 1, 1992 and January 1, 1993) the Grand List of October 1, 1992 (payable July 1, 1993 and January 1, 1994), the Grand List of October 1, 1993 (payable July 1, 1994 and January 1, 1995) and the Grand List of October 1, 1994 (payable July 1, 1995 and January 1, 1996). Also there is agreement between the parties, now court ordered, that plaintiff pay the interest and lien fees of these unpaid taxes through December 31, 1995. There is no agreement about the payment of interest and lien fees for January 1, 1996 forward. That matter is also subject of this decision. CT Page 131-A
The plaintiff argues that the only matter in the judgment (relating to the issues at hand) modified were which property the defendant was supposed to get on Deer Run Road. Plaintiff argues that the judgment was always in place, undisturbed, that each was to pay the expenses relating to their respective property. Plaintiff points out that the parties stipulated it was mistake, the defendant had been in the 67 Deer Run Road property all the time at issue and had received her support payments from plaintiff.
Relying on a similar argument, defendant also notes that until December 12, 1995, 67 Deer Run road was, by the judgment, the plaintiff's and, therefore, he should pay the taxes.
Neither party points to any law which would control on this issue. It has been held that the retroactive application of a child support order to the original order date was not error, where that order was subsequently modified as a result of mutual mistake. Hill v. Hill,
Had the order granting defendant 67 Deer Run Road been entered at the time of judgment, the defendant would without question, have been responsible for the payment of the taxes at issue. Only mistake as acknowledged by stipulation, intervened. It has been reformed. Further, defendant has demonstrated no adverse economic effect of the "mistake" sitting in place through the intervening years.
The defendant is solely responsible for the payment of real estate taxes on 67 Deer Run Road, Woodbridge for the Grand List of October 1, 1991 and all years thereafter. The defendant is solely responsible for interest and late fees accruals from January 1, 1996 forward. CT Page 131-B
Lynda B. Munro, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matza-v-matza-no-fa88-0272034-jan-9-1996-connsuperct-1996.