Southport Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Kundrath

Connecticut Appellate Court

Southport Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Kundrath

677 A.2d 977, 41 Conn. App. 747, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 308

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 18, 1996

Docket14211

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 677 A.2d 977 (Southport Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Kundrath) 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

Southport Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Kundrath, 677 A.2d 977, 41 Conn. App. 747, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 308 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Michael R. Kundrath, appeals from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff rendered after a court trial. The plaintiff has filed a cross appeal. This action for breach of contract was commenced against Michael Kundrath and his mother, Theresa Kundrath, a resident of the plaintiff Southport Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. No judgment was rendered as to the defendant Theresa Kundrath. As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether there is an appealable final judgment.¹

In determining what is a final judgment for purposes of appellate review, we rely on the standard articulated in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). In re Elizabeth H., 40 Conn. App. 216, 218, 669 A.2d 1246 (1996). The partial judgment rendered neither terminated a separate and distinct proceeding nor so concluded the rights of the parties that further proceedings could not affect them. State v. Curcio, supra, 31. We conclude that no final judgment was rendered because a judgment against Theresa Kundrath could impact the nature and the amount of the liability of the defendant Michael Kundrath. See T. P. Brewer Construction Co. v. F & G Associates, 34 Conn. App. 714, 643 A.2d 308 (1994).

The lack of final judgment is a threshold question that implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of this court. Schick v. Windsor Airmotive Division/Barnes Group, 31 Conn. App. 819, 822, 627 A.2d 478 (1993). If there is no final judgment, we cannot reach the merits of the appeal. General Statutes §§ 51-197a and 52-263; Practice Book § 4000; Harrall-Michaelowski Associ[749]*749ates, Inc. v. Shippee, 40 Conn. App. 613, 615, 672 A.2d 539 (1996).

The appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Michael R. Kundrath, appeals from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff rendered after a court trial. The plaintiff has filed a cross appeal. This action for breach of contract was commenced against Michael Kundrath and his mother, Theresa Kundrath, a resident of the plaintiff Southport Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. No judgment was rendered as to the defendant Theresa Kundrath. As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether there is an appealable final judgment.¹

In determining what is a final judgment for purposes of appellate review, we rely on the standard articulated in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). In re Elizabeth H., 40 Conn. App. 216, 218, 669 A.2d 1246 (1996). The partial judgment rendered neither terminated a separate and distinct proceeding nor so concluded the rights of the parties that further proceedings could not affect them. State v. Curcio, supra, 31. We conclude that no final judgment was rendered because a judgment against Theresa Kundrath could impact the nature and the amount of the liability of the defendant Michael Kundrath. See T. P. Brewer Construction Co. v. F & G Associates, 34 Conn. App. 714, 643 A.2d 308 (1994).

The lack of final judgment is a threshold question that implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of this court. Schick v. Windsor Airmotive Division/Barnes Group, 31 Conn. App. 819, 822, 627 A.2d 478 (1993). If there is no final judgment, we cannot reach the merits of the appeal. General Statutes §§ 51-197a and 52-263; Practice Book § 4000; Harrall-Michaelowski Associ[749]*749ates, Inc. v. Shippee, 40 Conn. App. 613, 615, 672 A.2d 539 (1996).

The appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 A.2d 977, 41 Conn. App. 747, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southport-manor-convalescent-center-inc-v-kundrath-connappct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack