October 21, 2019
from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford,
Gerard I. Adelman, J.
Yagaloff, South Windsor, for the appellant (plaintiff).
B. Fontaine, with whom, on the brief, was C. Michael Budlong,
Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).
C.J., and Moll and Bishop, Js.
Conn.App. 60] 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 courts ruling, the plaintiffs appeal is moot.
Accordingly, we dismiss the plaintiffs appeal.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to the
disposition of the plaintiffs 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
plaintiffs] [195 Conn.App. 61] 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 plaintiffs claim was barred by the
statute of limitations governing breach of contract actions,
as provided in § 52-576 (a). After trial, the court
first determined that the plaintiffs 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.
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 courts determination that there was
insufficient evidence to support his claim that the defendant
had breached the separation agreement.
an appellant fails to challenge all bases for a trial courts
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
courts adverse ruling, but does not challenge all
independent [195 Conn.App. 62] 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
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 plaintiffs
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 plaintiffs 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. Because the
plaintiff did not challenge the trial courts 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 plaintiffs 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 courts 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 ...