Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Alexander v. Tyson
Citations: 999 A.2d 830; 122 Conn. App. 493; 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 311Docket: AC 30755
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; July 13, 2010; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
Robert L. Alexander appeals the trial court's judgment granting a nonsuit to Nancy Lou Tyson, administratrix of his deceased brother's estate. Alexander contends the court improperly rendered this judgment, asserting he lacked adequate notice of the trial date, there were outstanding motions and discovery, and he was denied due process. The background involves Albert A. Alexander's intestate death in 2006, the Probate Court's appointment of Tyson as administratrix, and Alexander's subsequent appeal against this appointment. After initially scheduling a trial for November 2008, the court rescheduled it to January 9, 2009, denying Alexander's motion for a continuance. On the trial date, Alexander did not appear, citing lack of notice and other reasons, leading the court to grant the defendant's oral motion for a nonsuit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to grant the nonsuit, emphasizing that the decision falls within the court's sound discretion as outlined in Practice Book 17-19, which allows for nonsuit due to a party's failure to appear without proper excuse. During a hearing before the trial, the court reviewed the plaintiff's reasons for not appearing, noting the trial had already been delayed for two months, both parties had been notified of the new date, and the plaintiff did not object to the schedule or file a required trial brief. The defendant highlighted that witnesses had traveled from multiple states, including family members of the plaintiff, who were unaware of the funeral the plaintiff claimed to attend. Ultimately, the court ruled a judgment of nonsuit, emphasizing that the plaintiff had previously lost legal representation without objection and that further continuance would be unfair to the defendant and witnesses. The court asserted that discretion in legal rulings should align with justice, and found no abuse of discretion in its decision to deny the plaintiff's last-minute request for a continuance. The court confirmed it considered the plaintiff’s explanations, the impact on others, and the procedural requirements he failed to meet. The appellate review concluded that the judgment of nonsuit was appropriate, and the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying probate appeal were not considered as they were not presented to the trial court. The plaintiff's claims of fraud against the defendant's attorney and issues regarding the late receipt of the defendant's trial brief were also dismissed as lacking merit. The judgment of nonsuit was affirmed, with other judges concurring.