Van Mecklenburg v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 494 A.2d 549 (Conn. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Van Mecklenburg v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 494 A.2d 549 (Conn. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 · …unless the parties waive this time limitation, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to open filed more than four months after a decision is rendered. ✓
130 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rosenthal Law Firm, LLC v. Cohen (connappct, 2016-05-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Rosenthal Law Firm, LLC v. Cohen (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Notwithstanding his unsuccessful initial attempt to file an application to vacate, which was returned to him for several reasons; see footnote 3 of this opinion; the defendant did not make an application to vacate the award until he successfully filed it on February 2, 2015; see Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 , 518-19, 494 A.2d 549 (1985) (motion submitted to and returned by clerk not deemed filed until resubmitted free from defect noted by clerk); Boltuch v. Rainaud, 137 Conn. 298 , 301, 77 A.2d 94 (1950) (application to vacate arbitration award made when f…
discussed Cited "see" Wallace v. Cressler Trucking Co., No. Cv00 37 20 75 S (Aug. 22, 2001) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc ., 196 Conn. 517 , 518 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985).
discussed Cited "see" Crim v. Commission on Human Rights Opp., No. 431931 (Jun. 28, 2000) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
If a plaintiff sends an appeal to the clerk's office without the correct filing fee, the appeal is not considered "filed." Id ; see Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways , 196 Conn. 517 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985).
discussed Cited "see" Searles v. West Hartford Board, No. Cv 90-0384053s (Mar. 29, 2000) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
This court thus lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present motion filed more than four months after the decision was rendered; see Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 , 518 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985); and, accordingly, the motion must be denied.
cited Cited "see" Lynch v. Patrons Mutual Insurance Co., No. Cv96 0561029 (Nov. 5, 1996)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 , 519 (1985).
cited Cited "see" Lynch v. Patrons Mutual Insurance Co., No. Cv96 0561029 (Nov. 5, 1996)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 , 519 (1985).
discussed Cited "see" Drega v. Pendleton Nursing Rehabilitation Ctr., No. 527468 (Mar. 22, 1995) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. 196 Conn. 517 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985).
cited Cited "see" Sidor v. Conn. Natural Gas Corp., No. Cv910116368 (Nov. 20, 1991)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 (1985).
discussed Cited "see" Serrano v. Behar (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517, 518 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Boccuzzi v. Martin, No. Cv98 0164273 S (Sep. 11, 1998)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Mecklenbury v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. , 196 Conn. 517 , 494 A.2d 517 (1985).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Morelli v. Manpower, Inc. (4×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Greenwich Hotel Ltd. v. Schindler Corp., No. Cv 91 0116149 (May 3, 1994) (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also [ Van Mecklenburg v. American Airways, Inc. ], 196 Conn. 517 , 518 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Morelli v. Manpower, Inc. (2×)
Conn. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Morelli v. Manpower, Inc. (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pump Services Corp. v. Roberts (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Van Mecklenburg v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 196 Conn. 517, 518 , 494 A.2d 549 (1985); Acheson v. White, supra; Steve Viglione Sheet Metal Co. v. Sakonchick, supra; 1W.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J. E. Van Mecklenburg
v.
Pan American World Airways, Inc.
12489.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 25, 1985.
494 A.2d 549
Leslie Szilagyi, for the appellant (plaintiff)., MarkR. Carta, with whom, on the brief, was Michael J. Jones, for the appellee (defendant).
Cited by 71 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

In December of 1977, the plaintiff,

Johannes Van Mecklenburg, instituted suit against the defendant, Pan American World Airways, Inc., to recover damages arising from an alleged breach of a charter contract. On December 3,1979, the trial court dismissed the case on its own motion pursuant to Practice Book § 251, for failure to prosecute with diligence. The plaintiff timely filed a motion to open judgment, which the trial court granted on June 23, 1980.

On June 11,1982, the trial court again dismissed the action pursuant to § 251. The plaintiff filed a motion to open the judgment of dismissal on October 8,1982,[*518] but failed to pay the accompanying filing fee. Although the trial court clerk who handled the motion stamped it as received by the court on October 8, upon realizing that the required fee had not been paid, the clerk crossed out the October 8 receipt date on the face of the motion and immediately returned it to the plaintiff. On October 15 the plaintiff refiled the motion and paid the fee. The trial court, Satter, J., opened the June 11,1982 judgment dismissing the case despite the defendant’s objection that the motion as refiled was untimely and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction.

In a memorandum of decision issued after a trial on the merits, the court, Gaffney, J., found the substantive issues for the defendant, and also found that, in any event, the plaintiff lacked standing to sue on the contract. The plaintiff sought review of the trial court’s decision in the Appellate Court. We transferred the case to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 3004A. We find error.

“Unless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, any civil judgment . . . rendered in the superior court may not be opened . . . unless a motion to open ... is filed within four months succeeding the date on which it was rendered or passed.” General Statutes § 52-212a; Practice Book § 326. Unless the parties waive this time limitation, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to open filed more than four months after a decision is rendered. Celanese Fiber v. Pic Yarns, Inc., 184 Conn. 461, 465, 440 A.2d 159 (1981); see Misinonile v. Misinonile, 190 Conn. 132, 134, 459 A.2d 518 (1983). The present action was dismissed by the trial court on June 11,1982. The plaintiff did not file a motion to open the judgment until October 15, 1982, more than four months later. Under the circumstances, the trial court was simply without jurisdiction to order that the pro[*519] ceedings be reopened. The order of dismissal should have been left undisturbed and the trial court therefore erred in hearing the case on the merits.

The plaintiff claims that, for purposes of the four month rule, October 8, and not October 15, should be considered the actual date on which the motion was filed. He argues that there was no need for the clerk’s office to return his motion and change the original filing date because General Statutes § 52-259c, which requires the payment of this filing fee, does not specifically provide that a motion not accompanied by the fee will be returned.

General Statutes § 52-259c states that “[tjhere shall be paid to the clerk of the superior court a fee of fifteen dollars upon the filing of any motion to open . . . any civil judgment rendered in superior court . . . .” It is clear from the language of this statute that payment of such fee is mandatory upon the filing of a motion to open. It therefore follows that an otherwise properly filed motion to open will not be accepted by the court unless accompanied by the filing fee. Since the plaintiff did not pay the required fee until October 15, the motion was not filed until that date, and as such, is untimely under the four month rule.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.