Page 30 - CLT083120

30 ¦ AUGUST 31, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT ordering on the motion. The court noted that
defendant’s second and third challenges did not
challenge the trial court’s jurisdictional authori-
ty, and dismissed them for lack of subject matter
CIVIL PROCEDURE • TRUSTS AND ESTATES jurisdiction, but the defendant’s first claim (that

Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Challenge plaintiff lacked standing) raised a jurisdictional
Requirement Exception from Solomon challenge. Nonetheless, the court found plaintiff
had standing as sole administrator of the estate
CASE: Wolfork v. Yale Med. Group where the previous administrator was removed,
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court and as such had full legal authority to prosecute
DOC. NO.: SC 20344 any actions on behalf of the estate.

COURT OPINION BY: Ecker FAMILY LAW
DATE: April 22, 2020 • PAGES: 17
The decedent, the 11-year old son of the plain-
tiff in the action, died while hospitalized at the Court Reopening of Dissolution
Yale-New Haven Hospital, owned by the de- Judgment Does Not Reinstate Marriage
fendant. The then administrator of decedent’s
estate filed a medical negligence action against When Done for the Limited Purpose of
defendants on behalf of decedent, and the trial Reconsidering Financial Orders
court sua sponte dismissed the action for failure
to prosecute and issued a final judgment of dis- CASE: Foisie v. Foisie
missal. Plaintiff was subsequently appointed as COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
administrator of the estate. Plaintiff moved to DOC. NO.: SC 20384
open and vacate the malpractice dismissal argu- COURT OPINION BY: D’Auria
ing that counsel failed to fill out a request for DATE: April 27, 2020 • PAGES: 15
extension due to a mistake on a pending pro- The trial court dissolved the parties’ marriage
bate issue. The trial court granted the motion in 2011. Four years later, the plaintiff sought
to open and vacate, and defendant’s appeal was to set aside the dissolution on the grounds of
transferred to the Supreme Court. Defendants fraud or mutual mistake, alleging defendant
argued that the plaintiff lacked standing be- had hidden millions in financial assets in Swiss
cause he was not a party to the initial action, the bank accounts, and arguing that law and eq-
motions failed to comply with statute, and any uity required the reopening of the dissolution
fraud was perpetrated by plaintiff and not the judgment and the recalculation of the marital
defendants. First, the court clarified the general financial division. The dissolution was opened
exception from Solomon that an order grant- for the limited purpose of conducting discov-
ing a motion to open is not an appealable final ery. During discovery the defendant died, and
judgment unless the moving party raises a col- plaintiff sought to substitute the coexecutors of
orable challenge to the jurisdiction of the court defendant’s estate in his place. The trial court

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune