Argued
October 21, 2019
Procedural
History
Action
to recover damages for breach of contract, and for other
relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Hartford and tried to the court, Hon. Gerard
I. Adelman, judge trial referee; judgment for the
defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Appeal dismissed.
Keith
Yagaloff, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Brandon B. Fontaine, with whom, on the brief, was C. Michael
Budlong, for the appellee (defendant).
DiPentima, C. J., and Moll and Bishop, Js.
OPINION
PER
CURIAM.
The
plaintiff, Jean-Marc Jacques, appeals from the judgment of
the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Muriel
Jacques. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court
erred by (1) concluding that his action was barred by the
statute of limitations contained in General Statutes §
52-576 (a), (2) determining that it lacked continuing
jurisdiction to enforce the parties' separation
agreement, and (3) failing to construe the parties'
separation agreement as a contract and to effectuate the
intent of the parties to the contract. Because, however, the
plaintiff has failed to challenge an independent ground for
the trial court's ruling, the plaintiff's appeal is
moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the plaintiff's
appeal.[1]
The
following facts and procedural history are relevant to the
disposition of the plaintiff's appeal. In May, 2016, the
plaintiff brought a breach of contract action against the
defendant, alleging that she had breached the parties'
marital separation agreement by failing to disclose assets.
Paragraph 10 (h) of the separation agreement provided:
‘‘[A]ny assets over ten thousand and 00/100 ($10,
000.00) dollars in fair market value that the [defendant]
owns or has an equitable interest in at the time of the
dissolution which are not shown by the [defendant] on her
financial affidavit, shall, upon discovery by the other
party, become [the plaintiff's] property without any
defense interposed by the [defendant] whatsoever as to such
claims of the other party.'' In his complaint, the
plaintiff alleged that the defendant liquidated two annuities
prior to the divorce. The plaintiff argued that the proceeds
from these liquidated annuities, totaling $1, 153, 444.78,
were undisclosed assets under paragraph 10 (h) of the
separation agreement. The defendant denied the material
allegations of the complaint and raised a number of special
defenses, including that the plaintiff's claim was barred
by the statute of limitations governing breach of contract
actions, as provided in § 52-576 (a).[2] After trial, the
court first determined that the plaintiff's action was
barred by the statute of limitations. The court then found
that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant had
breached the separation agreement as alleged by the plaintiff
and that there had been no failure to disclose assets by
either party. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment in
favor of the defendant. This appeal followed.
Before
this court, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred
in a number of ways relating to the applicability of the
statute of limitations. The plaintiff does not, however,
challenge the trial court's determination that there was
insufficient evidence to support his claim that the defendant
had breached the separation agreement.
‘‘Where
an appellant fails to challenge all bases for a trial
court's adverse ruling on his claim, even if this court
were to agree with the appellant on the issues that he does
raise, we still would not be able to provide [him] any relief
in light of the binding adverse finding[s] [not raised] with
respect to those claims. . . . Therefore, when an appellant
challenges a trial court's adverse ruling, but does not
challenge all independent bases for that ruling, the appeal
is moot.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Parnoff v. Aquarion Water Co. of Connecticut, 188
Conn.App. 153, 166, 204 A.3d 717 (2019).
In the
present case, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of
the defendant on two grounds. First, it determined that the
separation agreement remained a contract beyond the judgment
of the court dissolving the marriage and that the
plaintiff's breach of contract claim was barred by the
statute of limitations. Second, the court found that there
was insufficient evidence that the defendant had breached the
separation agreement, and, thus, the plaintiff's claim
failed on the merits. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that
his action was not barred by the statute of limitations
because the separation agreement had been incorporated into
the judgment by the court dissolving the
marriage.[3] Because the plaintiff did not challenge
the trial court's determination that he failed to prove a
breach of contract, there is no practical relief that this
court can grant to him. Thus, even if we agreed with the
plaintiff's argument that his action is not barred by the
statute of limitations, we would be unable to provide relief
because the plaintiff failed to challenge the trial
court's finding on the merits. See Hartford v. CBV
Parking Hartford, LLC, 330 Conn. 200, 210, 192 A.3d 406
(2018) (‘‘[u]ndoubtedly, if there exists an
unchallenged, independent ground to support a decision, an
appeal from that decision would be moot, as this court could
not afford practical relief even if the appellant were to
prevail on the issue raised on appeal''). Thus, the
plaintiff's appeal is moot and we are without subject
matter jurisdiction.
The
...