Opinion
HHDFA104050169S
09-05-2017
Cathy Patteson v. Leisa King
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDERS RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, POSTJUDGMENT (#128)
Robert Nastri, Jr., J.
The defendant's June 30, 2017 motion to dismiss (#128) and the plaintiff's August 25, 2017 reply thereto (#132) came before the court on August 30, 2017. The defendant is seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's June 2, 2017 motion to modify (#126) in which she is seeking to reinstate an alimony award. The defendant argues that the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction because alimony terminated in November 2016 and " once terminated, alimony cannot be restored by subsequent judicial action." Connolly v. Connolly, 191 Conn. 468, 476 n.6, 464 A.2d 837 (1983).
" Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power [of the court] to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Crystal, 251 Conn. 748, 763, 741 A.2d 956 (1999). " [I]t is well established that, in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Financial Consulting, LLC v. Commissioner of Insurance, 315 Conn. 196, 226, 105 A.3d 210 (2015). When the question of subject matter jurisdiction is raised either by the parties or by the court, sua sponte, the court must resolve the issue before undertaking any other matters in the case. Commissioner of Transportation v. Rocky Mountain, LLC, 277 Conn. 696, 703, 894 A.2d 259 (2006). Our Supreme Court has noted that: " [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction . . . The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sousa v. Sousa, 322 Conn. 757, 770, 143 A.3d 578 (2016).
" Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of a court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it." Id. " A court does not truly lack subject matter jurisdiction if it has competence to entertain the action before it ." (Emphasis in original.) Id., 772. " Once it is determined that a tribunal has authority or competence to decide the class of cases to which the action belongs, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is resolved in favor of entertaining the action." Id., 778 n.14. " Although related, the court's authority to act pursuant to a statute is different from its subject matter jurisdiction. The power of the court to hear and determine, which is implicit in jurisdiction, is not to be confused with the way in which that power must be exercised in order to comply with the terms of the statute." Id., 778-79 n.14. Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction requires a different inquiry than whether a court has " substantive authority to adjudicate the merits of the case before it. " Kim v. Magnotta, 249 Conn. 94, 104, 733 A.2d 809 (1999).
" [T]he Superior Court is a general jurisdiction tribunal with plenary and general subject matter jurisdiction over legal disputes in family relations matters under General Statutes § 46b-1." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sousa, supra, 776-77. " General Statutes § 46b-1 provides in relevant part: 'Family relations matters defined. Matters within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court deemed to be family relations matters shall be matters affecting or involving . . . (4) alimony . . .'" Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724, 729 n.4, 724 A.2d 1084 (1999). " General Statutes § 46b-86(a) provides in relevant part [that] . . . 'any final order for the periodic payment of permanent alimony . . . may at any time thereafter be continued, set aside, altered or modified . . .'" Amodio, supra, 729 n.5. Under the two statutes, the court had jurisdiction to enter an alimony order and continues to have jurisdiction over the issue of alimony. Any substantive limit on the court's authority to modify the alimony order does not implicate the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
The motion to dismiss (#128) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. The court makes no finding regarding its substantive authority to grant the relief the plaintiff seeks in her motion to modify (#126).