V. V. v. V. V.

Full title: V. V. v. V. V.[*]

Court: Court of Appeals of Connecticut

Date published: Oct 11, 2022

215 Conn. App. 737 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)

283 A.3d 1045

Opinion

AC 44752

10-11-2022

V. V. v. V. V.

V. V., self-represented, the appellant (defendant). Gayle A. Sims, for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

V. V., self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

Gayle A. Sims, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Prescott, Cradle and Clark, Js.

PER CURIAM. The defendant, V. V., appeals from the trial court's May 20, 2021 postjudgment orders, one of which was vacated by the court and one of which reflected that the defendant's counsel withdrew all of her pending motions on the record at a hearing that same day.¹ Because the defendant was not aggrieved by either order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1 Following appellate briefing and oral argument, this court issued a supplemental briefing order asking the parties to address the jurisdictional question of whether the defendant was aggrieved by the trial court's May 20, 2021 orders from which she appeals. The defendant filed a supplemental brief on August 12, 2022. The plaintiff did not file a response.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On December 11, 2020, the father of the plaintiff, V. V., a minor child, filed an application for relief from abuse on behalf of the plaintiff, claiming that the defendant, who suffers from bipolar disorder with psychosis, had attempted to abduct the plaintiff. The trial court, M. Murphy, J. , issued a temporary ex parte restraining order on December 11, 2020, and a hearing was thereafter scheduled for December 23, 2020. Following the December 23, 2020 hearing, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the application and extended the December 11, 2020 ex parte restraining order for one year. Judgment entered on December 23, 2020.

On March 1, 2021, more than two months after the court rendered judgment on the restraining order, the defendant filed with the trial court both a motion for extension of time to appeal the December 23, 2020 judgment and an application for waiver of fees. The trial court, M. Murphy, J. , granted the fee waiver on March 2, 2021, but denied the motion for extension of time to appeal on March 4, 2021, as the time to file an appeal had expired. On March 16, 2021, the defendant filed an appeal with this court from the trial court's order denying her motion for extension of time to appeal. This court dismissed her appeal for failure to comply with Practice Book § 63-4.

The defendant thereafter filed numerous motions in the Superior Court, including motions for contempt, to set aside the restraining order, and for a guardian ad litem to be appointed. A remote hearing was held on the defendant's pending motions on May 20, 2021. At that hearing, the defendant was represented by Attorney Alexander H. Schwartz. Although Attorney Schwartz indicated that he was withdrawing all of the defendant's pending motions, he mistakenly characterized the withdrawals as a withdrawal of the restraining order. Consequently, the trial court, Goodrow, J. , issued a written order on May 20, 2021, stating that it had accepted "the applicant's oral withdrawal of this action" on the record. The court, however, promptly recognized its mistake and issued a second order on that same date, which vacated its original order and clarified that (1) it had accepted the defendant's withdrawal of all of her pending motions on the record and (2) the restraining order that had entered on December 23, 2020, remained in full force and effect.² This appeal followed.

2 The order provided: "[The previous order] is vacated. The restraining order entered on [December 23, 2020] ... remains in full force and effect. At the remote hearing on [May 20, 2021] on [the defendant's] motions, [the defendant's] counsel withdrew on the record all pending motions filed by [the defendant]. The court accepted the withdrawal. The court ... erroneously stated on the record that this action was withdrawn; in fact, [the defendant's] motions were withdrawn, not this action. Unless otherwise modified by the court, the restraining order ... remains in full force and effect."

The following legal principles guide our inquiry into whether the defendant has been aggrieved by the trial court's May 20, 2021 orders. General Statutes § 52-263 grants the right of appeal to a party who is "aggrieved by the decision of the court or judge upon any question or questions of law arising in the trial ...." "Aggrievement, in essence, is appellate standing." In re Ava W. , 336 Conn. 545, 554, 248 A.3d 675 (2020). "It is axiomatic that aggrievement is a basic requirement of standing, just as standing is a fundamental requirement of jurisdiction. ... There are two general types of aggrievement, namely, classical and statutory; either type will establish standing, and each has its own unique features." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Perry v. Perry , 312 Conn. 600, 620, 95 A.3d 500 (2014). "The test for determining [classical] aggrievement encompasses a well settled twofold determination: first, the party claiming aggrievement must demonstrate a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision, as distinguished from a general interest shared by the community as a whole; second, the party claiming aggrievement must establish that this specific personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the decision." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Avon v. Freedom of Information Commission , 210 Conn. App. 225, 234, 269 A.3d 852 (2022). On June 1, 2021, the self-represented defendant filed this appeal. The notice of appeal indicates that she seeks to challenge the court's May 20, 2021 orders. It is clear, however, that the defendant's personal and legal interests have not been specially and injuriously affected by those orders. The first order, which mistakenly characterized the defendant's withdrawal of her pending motions as a withdrawal of the plaintiff's underlying action, was vacated by the second order. The second order simply reflected the fact that the defendant's counsel withdrew all of the defendant's pending motions at a hearing earlier that day.³ See In re Allison G. , 276 Conn. 146, 158, 883 A.2d 1226 (2005) ("[a] party cannot be aggrieved by a decision that grants the very relief sought" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.

3 Because the defendant's prior appeal from the court's December 23, 2020 judgment granting the application for relief from abuse was dismissed, we decline to construe the present appeal as an appeal from that judgment. Moreover, the defendant's supplemental brief in response to this court's order asking the parties to address the jurisdictional question of whether the defendant was aggrieved by the trial court's May 20, 2021 orders makes clear that the defendant appealed from the May 20, 2021 orders, not the December 23, 2020 judgment granting the application for relief from abuse.

The appeal is dismissed.