Opinion
FSTFA044001078
06-27-2016
Jacqueline O'Hara v. Edward O'Hara
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S POSTJUDGMENT MOTION FOR ORDER (#525)
Hon. Irene P. Jacobs, J.
The parties divorced on November 15, 2005. The plaintiff has filed the instant postjudgment motion, asking this court to establish a " leave to file" protocol upon the defendant's filing of future motions. The plaintiff's motion was heard by the court on June 3, 2016 and June 6, 2016. The plaintiff was represented by counsel. The defendant represented himself. The court heard the testimony of both parties, reviewed the documents entered into evidence, and took judicial notice of the file.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has filed " innumerable motions, most or all of which are designed to harass the plaintiff and which amounts to a pattern of vexatious litigation, causing plaintiff to suffer great emotional and financial distress."
The defendant testified that he filed no motions in the four years between 2011 and 2015. The court case detail, appended to this decision, supports his testimony. However, the court case detail reveals a sudden increase of fourteen motions filed by the defendant between June 25, 2015 and August 17, 2015 and at least fifty additional motions between August 17 and June 3, 2016.
On June 25, 2015, the defendant requested an educational support order [#396]. On July 13, 2015, he requested an educational support order from an alleged UTMA account [#397]. On July 20, 2015, the defendant filed nine motions: a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff for removing or embezzling funds from an alleged trust account [#398], a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce documents related to elective surgery expenses [#399], a motion to produce certain bank account statements [#400], a motion to freeze the plaintiff's bank accounts [#401], a motion to produce documents relating to the plaintiff's country club memberships [#402], a motion to provide an accounting of the alleged UTMA account [#403], a motion to replace all assets the plaintiff " removed or embezzled" from an alleged trust account [#404]; a motion to appoint a new alleged UTMA account [#406]. Between July 28, 2015 and August 17, 2015, the defendant filed more motions, including an emergency ex parte motion for an educational support order [#408], a motion requesting referral to the state's attorney for criminal felony prosecution of the plaintiff [#409], and a motion requesting an educational support order for the parties' elder daughter's September 2015 college semester [412.01].
On August 17, 2015, this court entered an educational support order, covering the parties' older daughter's fall 2015 college semester, pursuant to the parties' signed agreement. In their agreement, the parties agreed to file no further motions for a six-month period.
Despite the court's order, the defendant filed over thirty motions between August 17, 2015 and February 16, 2016. On January 27, 2016 and January 28, 2016 alone, the defendant filed eleven motions: a motion for discovery for of all email correspondence concerning the hiring of plaintiff's as counsel [451.00], a motion to object to plaintiff's motion use [sic] of our family wizard [452], a motion for order to garner [sic] wages of plaintiff [453], a motion to freeze UBS account of plaintiff [453.01]; a motion for capias [454]; two motion for sanctions , two motions for contempt of court , a motion to compel [459], and a motion to appoint a new trustee of the parties' daughter's UTMA account [460]. The plaintiff testified that she has had to miss work on numerous occasions because each of the motions filed by the defendant was claimed by the defendant for the short calendar and required the plaintiff's presence in court. Entered into evidence was a July 22, 2015 email sent by the defendant to the plaintiff in which the defendant stated, " I have just filed ten motions which will need to be heard in court immediately, further I will be filing a number of emergency x parte actions with the court. You need to be in town all august [sic] to go to court . . " [Exhibit 3.] The court finds the plaintiff's testimony as to the financial and emotional effects of the defendant's motions to be credible.
" Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous requires some portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice." In Re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989). It is incumbent upon the court to balance the needs of the court to continue with the orderly flow of business and address the caseload of the many litigants in the family court with the right of access to the courts. Bowles v. Bowles, No. 356104, 4/13/98, Munro, J.
The plaintiff refers this court to federal case law in which motion filing protocols have been entered In re Anthony Martin-Trigona, Docket 83-7534, U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Cir., 6/18/84, 737 F.2d 1254, 1256 and In re George Sassower v. Kenneth W. Starr et al., 338 B.R. 212, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York, 1/10/06, Hardin, J. In both of the cited federal cases, " leave to file" motion protocols were established by court facing a party's longstanding pattern of repetitive, abusive or vexatious litigation. " Courts are allowed leeway in developing remedies for [such cases]. In Re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 228-29 (2nd Cir. 1993)."
There are numerous instances wherein Connecticut courts have imposed restrictions, such as " leave to file" protocols upon a litigant's access to courts. In Strobel v. Strobel, 92 Conn.App. 662, 665, 886 A.2d 865 (2005), the Appellate Court noted, " the sheer volume of the pleadings filed by the parties is astounding, " and applauded the trial judge's limiting of both parties' filing of motions by requiring prior approval of the court. In Bowles v. Bowles, No. 356104, 4/13/98, Munro, J., the court characterized the filing of thirty motions in a three-month period and seventeen motions in an eight-month period as a " deluge" of motions filed by one of the parties. The court stated these many motions tax the judicial resources of a busy family court. In its decision, the court reviewed thirteen of the motions, and found that the defendant frivolously filed motions with the court on a continuous basis. The court then ordered a leave to file protocol by which the defendant's motions would be reviewed by the court before being calendared. In Linardos v. Linardos, FA960329872S, Superior Court, J.D. of Fairfield at Bridgeport, 1/4/05, Wolven, J., the court ordered a similar leave to file protocol after noting the " contentious and massive" procedural history of the case and appending the court case detail to its decision. See also Concepcion v. Caban, FA900308116, Superior Court, J.D. of New Haven, 2/14/06, Dewey, J. (similar).
After considering the contents of the court file, the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, the exhibits, and the relevant case law, the court grants the plaintiff's motion for order #525 and orders as follows: The defendant shall submit all future motions to the clerk's office for review by the Presiding Family Judge or its designated judge in its absence. Each motion filed by the defendant shall state the allegations and legal grounds relied on in furtherance of the motion. Each motion shall be accompanied by a motion for leave to file the motion, which shall be ruled upon by the Presiding Judge, or its judge designee, summarily, without hearing. All motions filed by the defendant since the date of the hearing on these motions shall not be calendared on the court docket. If the defendant wishes to pursue the substance of any of them, a new motion shall be filed with motion for leave of court in accordance with this court order.