Barton v. Barton

12 Citing cases

  1. Automotive Twins, Inc. v. Klein

    138 Conn. 28 (Conn. 1951)   Cited 58 times

    The assignment of a case for trial is in essence an order of the court that the parties proceed to trial at the time set. The defendant's failure to appear for trial was a failure to comply with an order of court and was ample cause for defaulting him. Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 489, 196 A. 141; Schoonmaker v. Albertson Douglass Machine Co., 51 Conn. 387, 393. The statute which controls the opening of judgments entered after default is 7963 of the General Statutes. It reads as follows: "Any judgment rendered or decree passed upon a default or nonsuit in the superior court, the court of common pleas or any municipal court may be set aside, within four months succeeding the date on which it was rendered or passed . . . upon the complaint or written motion of any party or person prejudiced thereby, showing reasonable cause, or that a good defense in whole or in part existed at the time of the rendition of such judgment or the passage of such decree, and that the defendant was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from appearing to make the same."

  2. Steve Viglione Sheet Metal Co. v. Sakonchick

    190 Conn. 707 (Conn. 1983)   Cited 128 times
    Noting court's inherent powers

    The defendant's claims regarding his attempt to file a motion to correct or to vacate and his failure to appear at the hearing on the motion to confirm the award were admittedly unchallenged by the plaintiff at the hearing on the motion to open judgment. While it is true that a judgment may be opened on the grounds of lack of notice or accidental failure to appear; Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 491, 196 A. 141 (1937); see Practice Book 377; it does not follow that such circumstances mandate the opening of a judgment. A motion to open in order to permit a party to present further evidence need not be granted where the evidence offered is not likely to affect the verdict.

  3. A. D.C. Contracting Supply v. Thomas J. Riordan

    176 Conn. 579 (Conn. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    It is well settled that "[t]he denial of such a motion should not be held to be an abuse of discretion in any case in which it appears that the defendant has no defense; Bellonio v. V.R. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105, 149 A. 218; or that he has not been prevented from appearing by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause. Automotive Twins, Inc. v. Klein, 138 Conn. 28, 34, 82 A.2d 146; Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 490, 196 A. 141." Jacobson v. Robington, 139 Conn. 532, 536, 95 A.2d 66 (1953).

  4. New England Floor Cov. v. Architectural Int., Inc.

    269 A.2d 267 (Conn. 1970)   Cited 12 times

    Practice Book 280 provides that a party who fails to comply with an order of court may be defaulted. "The assignment of a case for trial is in essence an order of the court that the parties proceed to trial at the time set. The defendant's failure to appear for trial was a failure to comply with an order of court and was ample cause for defaulting him. Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 489, 196 A. 141; Schoonmaker v. Albertson Douglass Machine Co., 51 Conn. 387, 393." Automotive Twins, Inc. v. Klein, 138 Conn. 28, 33, 82 A.2d 146.

  5. Lundborg v. Salvatore

    171 A.2d 400 (Conn. 1961)   Cited 6 times

    Here, the motion to open assigned no reasonable cause and was properly denied. Bellonio v. V. R. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105, 149 A. 218; Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 490, 196 A. 141; Automotive Twins, Inc. v. Klein, 138 Conn. 28, 34, 82 A.2d 146. Immediately after the entry of the default, the court proceeded to a hearing in damages.

  6. Jacobson v. Robington

    139 Conn. 532 (Conn. 1953)   Cited 30 times
    In Jacobson, the defendant appealed from a judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered against him following the entry of a default for failure to appear.

    Jartman v. Pacific Fire Ins. Co., 69 Conn. 355, 362, 37 A. 970. The denial of such a motion should not be held to be an abuse of discretion in any case in which it appears that the defendant has no defense; Bellonio v. V. R. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105, 149 A. 218; or that he has not been prevented from appearing by mistake, accident or, other reasonable cause. Automotive Twins, Inc. v. Klein, 138 Conn. 28, 34, 82 A.2d 146; Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 490, 196 A. 141. We consider first the question whether the defendant was prevented from entering her appearance by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause.

  7. Percy v. Lamar Cent. Outdoor, Llc.

    147 Conn. App. 815 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 8 times

    In light of the defendants' negligence, [the court] reasonably concluded that the defendants had failed to demonstrate good cause to set aside the default.”), with Patterson v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., 104 Conn.App. 824, 827, 936 A.2d 241 (2007) (defendant's failure to receive notice of date and time of pretrial conference constituted good cause for its nonappearance), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 920, 949 A.2d 481 (2008); see also Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 489–91, 196 A. 141 (1937); Bohonnon Law Firm, LLC v. Baxter, supra, 131 Conn.App. at 381–82, 27 A.3d 384. The defendant also argues that the court's denials of its motion to open and motions for reconsideration were a denial of due process.

  8. Finelli v. Paluzzi

    372 A.2d 984 (Conn. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    The defendants' failure to appear for trial was a failure to comply with a court order. Automotive Twins, Inc. v. Klein, 138 Conn. 28, 35; Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 489. The defendants have failed to present facts showing reasonable cause for not complying with the court order apart from their own negligence.

  9. FAHS v. FAHS

    2010 Ct. Sup. 14165 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)

    "The defendant can hardly charge the court with error where its course of action resulted from the neglect of his own counsel . . ." Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487 (1937), Aley v. Aley, 97 Conn.App. 850 (2006). Applying these principles to the facts of this matter, there is no validity to the defendant's claims.

  10. Watley v. Contento

    1997 Ct. Sup. 6946 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997)

    ". . . an application to open a judgment by default, [nonsuit] unless at least it is based on a pure error of law, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and we cannot hold that the trial court in this instance did not exercise a proper discretion in denying the motion."Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487. 491. The plaintiff was not limited by any "mistake, accident or other reasonable cause."