Willett v. Elderly Housing Management, No. Cv94 0312823 (Oct. 24, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Willett v. Elderly Housing Management, No. Cv94 0312823 (Oct. 24, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 8000

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 24, 1996

DocketNo. CV94 0312823

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 8000 (Willett v. Elderly Housing Management, No. Cv94 0312823 (Oct. 24, 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.

Bluebook

Willett v. Elderly Housing Management, No. Cv94 0312823 (Oct. 24, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 8000 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On August 22, 1996, the plaintiff, Helena Willett, filed a motion to open a judgment of dismissal rendered pursuant to Practice Book § 251. The plaintiff also filed an application for waiver of fees regarding her appellate court appeal on September 25, 1996. The defendants, Elderly Housing Management, LaPrise Quality Floor Covering, Inc. and Terminex International, Inc. all filed objections to the plaintiff's motion to open on the ground that the motion was filed more than four months after the entry of the judgment of dismissal.

This action was dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 251, for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence, on December 8, 1995. The notice of judgment states that a motion to open must be filed within four months of the date the judgment of dismissal was rendered. The plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed her motion to open on August 22, 1996, more than eight months after the § 251 dismissal.

"`"Unless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, any civil judgment . . . rendered in the superior court may not be opened . . . unless a motion to open . . . is filed within four months succeeding the date on which it was rendered or passed." General Statutes § 52-212a; Practice Book § 326. Unless the parties waive this time limitation, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to open filed more than four months after a decision is rendered.' Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American WorldAirways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517, 518, 494 A.2d 549 (1985)." G.F.Construction, Inc. v. Cherry Hill Construction, Inc., 42 Conn. App. 119,123-24, ___ A.2d ___ (1996). The plaintiff has not argued that she did not receive notice of the judgment which would extend her time in which to move to open by the delay in notification. Habura v. Kochanowicz, 40 Conn. App. 590, 592, CT Page 8001672 A.2d 512 (1996). "`Although we allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lemoinev. McCann, 40 Conn. App. 460, 465, 673 A.2d 115 (1996)." Zanoniv. Hudon, 42 Conn. App. 70, 77, 678 A.2d 12 (1996).

The plaintiff did not file her motion to open the judgment of dismissal within four months after that judgment was rendered, therefore this court is without jurisdiction to open that judgment. The plaintiff's motion to open is denied. The plaintiff's motion for fee waiver for an appeal is granted.

BY THE COURT Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

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.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On August 22, 1996, the plaintiff, Helena Willett, filed a motion to open a judgment of dismissal rendered pursuant to Practice Book § 251. The plaintiff also filed an application for waiver of fees regarding her appellate court appeal on September 25, 1996. The defendants, Elderly Housing Management, LaPrise Quality Floor Covering, Inc. and Terminex International, Inc. all filed objections to the plaintiff's motion to open on the ground that the motion was filed more than four months after the entry of the judgment of dismissal.

This action was dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 251, for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence, on December 8, 1995. The notice of judgment states that a motion to open must be filed within four months of the date the judgment of dismissal was rendered. The plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed her motion to open on August 22, 1996, more than eight months after the § 251 dismissal.

"`"Unless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, any civil judgment . . . rendered in the superior court may not be opened . . . unless a motion to open . . . is filed within four months succeeding the date on which it was rendered or passed." General Statutes § 52-212a; Practice Book § 326. Unless the parties waive this time limitation, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to open filed more than four months after a decision is rendered.' Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American WorldAirways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517, 518, 494 A.2d 549 (1985)." G.F.Construction, Inc. v. Cherry Hill Construction, Inc., 42 Conn. App. 119,123-24, ___ A.2d ___ (1996). The plaintiff has not argued that she did not receive notice of the judgment which would extend her time in which to move to open by the delay in notification. Habura v. Kochanowicz, 40 Conn. App. 590, 592, CT Page 8001672 A.2d 512 (1996). "`Although we allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lemoinev. McCann, 40 Conn. App. 460, 465, 673 A.2d 115 (1996)." Zanoniv. Hudon, 42 Conn. App. 70, 77, 678 A.2d 12 (1996).

The plaintiff did not file her motion to open the judgment of dismissal within four months after that judgment was rendered, therefore this court is without jurisdiction to open that judgment. The plaintiff's motion to open is denied. The plaintiff's motion for fee waiver for an appeal is granted.

BY THE COURT Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 8000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willett-v-elderly-housing-management-no-cv94-0312823-oct-24-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack