Joseph Grasso v. Joanne Grasso (2013)

Memorandum of Decision

Motion to Open Evidence # 254

Defendant has filed her Motion to Open Evidence, dated April 26, 2012, seeking to open the evidence on a Motion for Contempt and Motion for Order decided by Judge Wolven on August 1, 2012 and articulated on October 4, 2012.   Said decision is now under appeal.

Connecticut Practice Book Sec. 61–11(a) provides “except where otherwise provided by statute or other law, proceedings to enforce or carry out the judgment, or order shall be automatically stayed until the time to take an appeal has expired.   If appeal is filed, such proceedings shall be stayed until the final determination of the cause.   The only exception to subsection (a) is for orders defined in subsection (c), regarding stays in family matters.   Motion # 254 does not meet those criteria.

Defendant's motion claims to be based on newly discovered evidence regarding the plaintiff's bankruptcy proceeding.   Transcripts from the hearing before Judge Wolven reveal over 125 pages of testimony from plaintiff regarding his income.   The court's October articulation of decision indicated there was extensive testimony regarding plaintiff's income, his business, and the bankruptcy proceedings.   The bankruptcy matter was completed before the hearing began.

Defendant's Motion to Open Evidence appears, in fact, to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to reargue the facts and evidence from the hearing before Judge Wolven.   The motion is denied.

Motion for Compliance # 248

Defendant further seeks to have the plaintiff comply with Judge Wolven's order to disclose his 2012 person and business tax returns.   She claims the order is a support order not subject to stay pursuant to P.B. Section 61–11(c).

This court disagrees with defendant's position.   Judge Wolven's August memorandum of decision made specific findings regarding plaintiff's income and financial ability, a decision squarely against the defendant and subject of the above mentioned appeal.   The request for plaintiff's tax returns is simply and factually an attempt to enforce the judgment.   Defendant's reliance on All Season Services, Inc. v. Guildner, 89 Conn.App 781 (2005), is misplaced.   The court in that case allowed post-judgment discovery;  finding that the actions taken, the filing of a judgment lien, “were not proceedings to enforce the judgment” but to “preserve and protect property with which to satisfy a judgment pending final determination of an action ․”

Defendant's motion # 248 is denied.

Klatt, J.

Klatt, Corinne L., J.