Laurel A. Hilton v. Thomas C. Hilton et al. (2012)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE JUDGMENT

The motion is granted but the court's ruling on the Motion for Stipulated Judgment stands for the following reasons:

“A stipulated judgment is a contract of the parties acknowledged in open court and ordered to be recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction ․ While a stipulated or consent judgment is not a judicial determination of any litigated right ․ [it] is a judicial function and an exercise of the judicial power to render judgment on consent.   A judgment upon consent is a judicial act ․ There is no doubt that the parties may enter into any agreement they choose.   By seeking to transform their private agreement into a judgment of court, however, the parties invoke the judicial power of the court.   Such a judicial act, like all judicial acts, necessarily involves the court's exercise of its powers of law and equity.   The parties cannot, by giving each other consideration, compel a court to render a judgment in accordance with a stipulation that the court, in the exercise of its discretion, is unwilling to accept ․ [A] judge is not a mere umpire in a forensic encounter but a minister of justice, and it follows that an agreement is not necessarily binding on the court and may justifiably be disregarded in a particular case ․ Ordinarily ․ stipulations of the parties should be adopted by the court ․ If, for some reason, [however] the court cannot adopt the stipulation of the parties, it should state its disapproval of the stipulation and the reasons for its disapproval on the record.”  (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)  Midland Funding v. Tripp, 134 Conn.App. 195, 199–200 (2012).

The stipulated judgment provides for entry of a judgment in the amount of $375,000 against the defendant, where, of that amount, at least $293,000 is not yet due or payable to the plaintiff and on which there has been no default by the defendant.   Consequently, as to the sums not yet due or payable, there is no actual dispute between the parties ripe for the court's adjudication, therefore, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction regarding them.  “In light of the rationale of the ripeness requirement, to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements ․ we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire ․ Our Supreme Court has consistently held that our courts may not render advisory opinions ․ Such an opinion is one of advice and not of judgment as there are no parties whose rights are adjudicated, and it is not binding on anyone ․ Because courts are established to resolve actual controversies, before a claimed controversy is entitled to a resolution on the merits it must be justiciable ․ The general rule is that a case is justiciable if it is capable of resolution on the merits by judicial action ․ If an issue is not yet ripe for adjudication, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to afford it consideration.”  (Emphasis added.)  (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)  State v. Campbell, 84 Conn.App. 648, 650, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 940 (2004).   The parties cannot, by stipulation, confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court.  “Subject matter jurisdiction, unlike jurisdiction of the person, cannot be created through consent or waiver.”  (Citations omitted.)  Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 429–30 (1988).

The plaintiff states in her motion for reconsideration that “the defendant, as part consideration for the new loan [dated March 30, 2012], agreed to have judgment enter in order to provide plaintiff the current lien for all sums due against the escrow.”   The parties are attempting to use the power of the court to transform an unsecured debt into a secured debt.   In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court has no authority to do so.

Jane S. Scholl

Scholl, Jane S., J.