Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

WILLIAM PRIEST ET AL. v. KEVIN W. EDMONDS ET AL. (SC 18407)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella and McLachlan, Js. Argued December 7, 2009--officially released March 16, 2010

Margaret R. Jordan Addo, for the appellants (defendants). Paul H. D. Stoughton, with whom, on the brief, was Joshua S. Chapps, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J. The defendant, Kevin W. Edmonds, individually and doing business as Prescott Builders,1 appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to open a default judgment and for a directed verdict. He claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. The plaintiffs, William Priest and Christine Vannie, respond that the trial court properly exercised its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to open. We conclude that the record is inadequate for our review and, therefore, we decline to review the merits of the defendant's claim.2 The following facts and complex procedural history give rise to this appeal. In the underlying civil action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached his contract, committed fraud and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes

Download Priest v. Edmonds.pdf

Connecticut Law