Opinion
No. FA 06-4006691S
July 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant objected to the docketing of plaintiff's pendente lite motion for alimony. Counsel represented both parties. Both parties filed memoranda of law.
II. ISSUES
Has the plaintiff shown good cause for reclaiming her motion more than three months after filing it?
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff filed a motion for alimony on January 2, 2007. The matter was scheduled for hearing on January 8, 2007, but plaintiff failed to proceed. Plaintiff reclaimed the motion on March 1, 2007 and the matter was scheduled for hearing on March 19, 2007. Defendant requested plaintiff to "kindly reclaim your motions" due to defendant counsel's unavailability on March 19th. Plaintiff reclaimed the matter and it was scheduled for hearing on April 16, 2007 Plaintiff again reclaimed the matter and it appeared on the calendar for May 29th. By letter dated May 23, 2007, the defendant's counsel requested that the plaintiff "kindly mark your motion over" and requested plaintiff send "a settlement proposal to me [defendant's counsel] at your earliest convenience." Plaintiff reclaimed the motion on June 1, 2007 and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on June 15, 2007 alleging the plaintiff failed to proceed on her motion within three months of its filing.
IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Connecticut Practice Book § 25-34(c) provides in relevant part, "[u]nless for good cause shown, no motion may be reclaimed after a period of three months from the date of filing.""Whether a party has shown good cause in not pursuing a motion within a three month limitation is a question of fact for the trial court." Larson v. Larson, 89 Conn.App. 57, 69 (2005).
V. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's motion was scheduled to be heard on March 19th, which was within three months of the date of filing. Defendant requested plaintiff reclaim the motion because defendant's counsel would not be available on March 19th. Plaintiff reclaimed the motion and it appeared on the calendar for April 16th. Plaintiff did not proceed but reclaimed the matter for May 29th. Defendant's counsel then requested plaintiff to "kindly mark your motion over" and to send a "settlement proposal."
Plaintiff was prepared to go forward on March 19th, which was within three months of filing the motion. She did not proceed on April 16, which is more than three months after the filing. However, the plaintiff acquiesced to the defendant's request to mark over the matter until after May 29th and reclaimed the motion on June 1st. Plaintiff, therefore, has shown good cause for the court to hear argument on the motion.
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court should not decline to hear plaintiff's motion for alimony pendente lite because she failed to argue the motion within three months of filing.
VII. JUDGMENT
Defendant's objection to docketing plaintiff's motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.