Russell C. Ashcraft v. Dace J. Ashcraft (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The issue presented is whether this court should grant the defendant's motion to transfer the present marriage dissolution action from the judicial district of Fairfield to the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk.   Defendant's motion to transfer is denied.

The current dispute arises out of a marriage dissolution action, which the plaintiff filed with this court on February 26, 2010.   The complaint alleges the following facts.   The plaintiff husband, Russell C. Ashcraft, and defendant wife, Dace J. Ashcraft, were married on February 9, 1991 in New York, New York. The plaintiff had resided continuously in Connecticut for at least twelve months prior to the date upon which he initiated this action.   There are three minor children who are issue of the marriage.   The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has broken down irretrievably.

On March 19, 2010, the defendant filed a motion to transfer, pendente lite (# 101).   The plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant's motion.   The issue at present is whether the court should grant the defendant's motion to transfer this case from the judicial district of Fairfield to the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk.

The defendant represents that she was served with a writ, summons and complaint filed by the plaintiff, which indicate that both parties reside in Darien, Connecticut.   The defendant argues that this case should be transferred to the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk because, under Connecticut General Statutes § 51-344(10), the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk is the proper venue for a complaint seeking a dissolution of marriage and collateral relief for residents of Darien, Connecticut.

General Statutes § 51-344, the statute upon which the defendant relies in her motion, defines the Connecticut judicial districts.   Subsection (10) of the statute provides that “[t]he judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, consist[s] of the town[ ] of Darien ․” General Statutes § 46b-45(a) provides:  “A proceeding for annulment, dissolution of marriage or legal separation shall be commenced by the service and filing of a complaint as in all other civil actions in the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides.   The complaint may also be made by the Attorney General in a proceeding for annulment of a void marriage.   The complaint shall be served on the other party.”   Nevertheless, General Statutes § 51-345, which provides the venue for civil actions and return of civil process, appears to allow plaintiffs to file actions in some judicial districts that are outside of the judicial districts in which they reside.   The statute provides that “[i]f either the plaintiff or defendant resides in the town of Darien ․ the action may be made returnable at the option of the plaintiff to either the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk or the judicial district of Fairfield.”  (Emphasis added.)  § 51-345(3)(E).

“The terms ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘venue’ are not synonymous.   Jurisdiction ․ has to do with the authority or power of a court to hear and decide the cause of action presented to it and its source lies in constitutional and statutory provisions.   Venue, on the other hand, concerns only the place where the case may be tried and venue requirements are created generally for the convenience of the parties.   Our Supreme Court has indicated that outside the area of administrative appeals, venue is not a jurisdictional but a procedural question;  consequently, venue, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, can be waived by the parties;  in other words venue is a matter that goes to process rather than substantive rights.

“In the context of a dissolution proceeding or other family relations matter, the concept of venue relates to the particular judicial district of the Superior Court in which the action shall be maintained.   Venue in civil actions is governed by [General Statutes] § 51-345 which sets forth the venue provisions for various types of proceedings.   Since no special venue requirements are imposed for family relations matters, they are governed by [General Statutes] § 51-345(a) which contains the general venue provisions for civil actions.

“In general, the action must be brought in the judicial district where the parties reside ․ [I]f either party resides in a number of specified towns, the plaintiff has the choice of bringing the action in either of two specified judicial districts.   The statute [§ 51-345] should be consulted ․ to insure that the action is commenced in an appropriate judicial district.”   (Emphasis added.)   A. Rutkin & K. Hogan, 7 Connecticut Practice Series:  Family Law and Practice (1999) § 16.8, p162-63.

“Judges have occasionally entered orders sua sponte dismissing or transferring actions pending in a judicial district in which neither party resides.   There are no reported decisions discussing the propriety of such orders.”   Id., 163.  “As a general rule, a trial judge has the right to transfer, sua sponte, a case if it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency.   General Statutes § 51-347b(a) provides:  ‘Any action or the trial of any issue or issues therein may be transferred, by order of the court on its own motion or on the granting of a motion of any of the parties, or by agreement of the parties, from the superior court for one judicial district to the superior court in another court location within the same district or to a superior court location for any other judicial district, upon notice by the clerk to the parties after the order of the court ․’ Practice Book § 12-1 further provides:  ‘Any cause, or the trial of any issue therein, may be transferred from a judicial district court location to any other judicial district court location or to any geographical area court location, or from a geographical area court location or to any judicial district court location, by order or a judicial authority (1) upon its own motion or upon the granting of a motion of any of the parties, or (2) upon written agreement of the parties filed with the court.’  “ Sanford v. Gorton, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV 09 4028647 (September 16, 2009, Bellis, J.).

In the present matter, the defendant supports her motion to transfer by arguing that the judicial district of Fairfield is the incorrect venue.   Issues regarding the venue of a family law case are governed by § 51-345(3)(E), which provides that the plaintiff had the option of filing this action either in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk or in the judicial district of Fairfield.   The court has the discretion to transfer this case, sua sponte, if it deems that a transfer would be necessary in the interest of justice or judicial efficiency.   The defendant does not argue, and there is no evidence indicating, that transferring the case to the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk is necessary to promote justice or judicial efficiency.   Therefore, the court sees no reason why this case should be transferred.

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the defendant's motion to transfer.

OWENS, J.T.R.

Owens, Howard T., J.T.R.