Opinion
FBTFA044001348S
12-23-2016
Michael Shaw v. Karin Shaw
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REARGUE, POSTJUDGMENT
Mary E. Sommer, J.
The court, having granted the plaintiff's motion to reargue the motion to dismiss, and having considered the arguments by the parties, hereby issues the following decision.
I. APPLICABLE LAW
" [T]he purpose of a reargument is . . . to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts . . . It may also be used to address . . . claims of law that the [movant] claimed were not addressed by the court . . . [A] motion to reargue [however] is not to be used as an opportunity to. have a second bite of the apple . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gibbs v. Spinner, 103 Conn.App. 502, 507, 930 A.2d 53 (2007), citing Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 693, 778 A.2d 981, 985 (2001).
Courts routinely premise consideration of motions for reargument with the fundamental prohibition against rearguing evidence already presented or attempting to submit evidence which should have been submitted at the original hearing, commonly referenced as " a second bite of the apple" or submission of additional cases or briefs which could have been presented at the time of the original argument. For example, in Collinsville Baking Co. v. Master Chef Rest. Equip., Inc., No. LLICV146010236S, 2014 WL 7739152, at *6 (Conn.Super.Ct. Dec. 11, 2014) the superior court held that the movant's more detailed arguments concerning personal jurisdiction in the motion to reargue constituted an improper attempt for the defendant to get a chance at " a second bite of the apple."
II. ANALYSIS
In the July 29, 2016 memorandum of decision, the court restated and summarized the defendant's claims in support of her motion to open judgment [62 Conn.L.Rptr. 772, ]. It is clear from the language of the court's decision that the court was not make evidentiary findings of fact, but was restating the alleged factual basis for the defendant's motion to open judgment. The plaintiff has misinterpreted the court's statements as adjudicative, disregarding the court's specific reference to these statements as plaintiff's allegations. The heading Introduction and Summary of Facts in the court's decision merely sets forth the procedural background of the case. As stated, the text of the memorandum distinguishes between facts previously determined and the defendant's allegations.
Plaintiff next argues that the court incorrectly applied the law as to in personam jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff fails to cite any authority that would have a controlling effect on the court's decision on the motion to open judgment in this case. The court confirms that the superior court properly obtained jurisdiction when the plaintiff commenced the action for dissolution of his marriage. It is also generally accepted that post judgment motions to enforce dissolution orders are ancillary to the underlying dissolution action. Although not controlling authority, this court agrees with the following analysis of the trial level court: " It is clear that the general rule in Connecticut is that personal jurisdiction once acquired is not lost or divested by subsequent events or actions of the parties." Bailey v. O'Neill, 8 Conn. L. Rpter 99, (December 10, 1992). " Equity Jurisdiction once obtained in a divorce or dissolution proceeding will be retained for the purpose of administering complete relief." Breed v. Breed, 11 Conn. L. Trib. No. 27, p. 8 (Super.CT. December 13, 1984).
In Cashman v. Cashman, 41 Conn.App. 382, 388, 676 A.2d 427 (1996), the Appellate Court confirmed that once personal jurisdiction is obtained over an individual in a given case, it continues. " If a state obtains jurisdiction over a party to an action, the jurisdiction continues throughout all subsequent proceedings which arise out of the original cause of action. Reasonable notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard must be given the party at each new step in the proceeding. Under the doctrine of continuing personal jurisdiction, once a divorce judgment is granted by a court with personal jurisdiction, neither party can escape jurisdiction in future proceedings that attempt to modify or alter the judgment ." Id. at 388. (Emphasis added.)
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to establish that the court made improper findings of fact which formed the basis of its decision as stated in its July 29, 2016 Memorandum of Decision. The court concurs with the defendant's argument that the entirety of plaintiff's argument in his motion is a restatement of Plaintiff's argument that was presented to the Court at the April 28, 2016 hearing in an effort to get a " second bite at the apple."
The Defendant's Motion is denied.