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.

"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.

". . . 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."

There is no bright line test. The following considerations apply; Lack of notice of the hearing, Paiwich v. Kreiswalis, 97 Conn. 123, 125 (1927); Failure to appear at the hearing caused by accident, mistake or other reasonable cause, Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 491 (1937); Negligence is not sufficient reasonable cause to open a judgment, Peoples Bank v. Horesco, 205 Conn. 319, 323-324 (1987); 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 effect the judgment, Freccia v. Martin, 163 Conn. 160, 165 (1972), "A party should not be allowed to relitigate a matter which it already has an opportunity to litigate." Duhaime v. America Reserve Life Ins. Co., CT Page 2547-S 200 Conn. 360, 363-364 (1986); Duress is a reason to open a judgment,Sparaco v. Tenney, supra 438; Newly discovered evidence not previously discovered or discoverable will support a motion to open, Hirtle v. Hirtle, 217 Conn. 394, 398 (1991); The motion to open is not a substitute for an appeal, Jones v. Litchfield 1 Conn. App. 40, 42 (1983), cert. denied 192 Conn. 802 (1984); Decisions by the court as the arbitrator of credibility are ordinarily not subject to a motion to open, Acheson v. White, 195 Conn.

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.

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).

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.

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.

The state has an interest in every action where a divorce is sought. Barton v. Barton, 123 Conn. 487, 491. The status created by marriage "is one from which they cannot separate themselves by their own agreement, or by their own misconduct."

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.