Opinion
No. FA00 0176686 S
September 26, 2003
CORRECTION
The court rendered a decision in this matter by way of a Memorandum of Decision dated August 18, 2003, and corrected August 28, 2003. The plaintiff has asked the court for a clarification, further correction, and some other relief by way of a Motion for Clarification and/or to Correct Judgment dated September 12, 2003.
"Motions for interpretation or clarification, although not specifically described in the rules of practice, are commonly considered by trial courts and are procedurally proper." Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22 Conn. App. 363, 366 (1990); Cattaneo v. Cattaneo, 19 Conn. App. 161, 163 (1989); Schott v. Schott, 18 Conn. App. 333, 334-35 (1989); Miller v. Miller, 16 Conn. App. 412, 415 (1988). Moreover, "under the common law, judgments may be `corrected' at any time." Blake v. Blake, 211 Conn. 485, 494 (1989). Where the court believes that the decision would otherwise benefit by a clarification and/or correction, it lies within the power of the court to do so, even sua sponte. Van Nest v. Kegg, 70 Conn. App. 191 (2002). Furthermore, it has been long held that a trial court has the general power to enter appropriate orders in order to give effect to its decree. Gentile v. Ives, 163 Conn. 281, 282 (1972); Murphy v. Murphy, No. 28 37 27 (December 1, 1995), 1995 Ct. Sup. 13390, page 3427 (Hull, S.T.R.). Where a party seeks the "effectuation" of a decree as opposed to its modification, the court may grant the relief requested. Santoro v. Santoro, 70 Conn. App. 212, 217 (2002).
BY WAY OF CORRECTION:
After a review of the court's trial notes, the court hereby corrects that portion of the first full paragraph on page 2 of its Memorandum of Decision dated August 18, 2003 to read as follows:
From time to time she has accepted part-time assignments at an hourly rate ($400.00 per day) from Christie's, and she has averaged about $13,000.00 per annum for the years 1999 through 2001. CT Page 10881-bm
BY WAY OF EFFECTUATION OF JUDGMENT:
The relief sought by the plaintiff in paragraph 2 is HEREBY GRANTED and for every year in which he has alimony and/or child support obligation, the defendant is ORDERED to produce a signed copy of his federal tax return to the plaintiff (together with all W-2s and Form 1099s) within ten (10) days of filing, but no later than August 31 of each year.
The relief sought by the plaintiff in paragraph 5 is HEREBY GRANTED and the following may be added to 10 of the court Order:
Upon written request of the Wife, the Husband shall promptly provide written evidence that the insurance is in full force and effect in the form of a copy of the most current declaration page or written confirmation by the Husband's employer showing the designation of beneficiaries. The Wife shall be entitled to such information no more than twice in each calendar year.
AS TO THE OTHER RELIEF SOUGHT:
As to the other relief sought in paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 of the plaintiff's motion, it is beyond the scope of a motion for clarification and is not in the nature of a correction. The opinion is sufficiently clear and does not require further clarification or correction, and will, in large part, result in an impermissible modification of the property award.
In all other respects the remaining provisions of the Memorandum of Decision shall remain in full force and effect.
THE COURT
SHAY, J. CT Page 10881-bn