Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; November 1, 1988; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
Defendants Wieslaw and Kazimierz Koziura appeal the trial court's denial of their motions to open and vacate a judgment and a judgment lien related to a lease agreement involving Alexandra’s Fashions, Ltd. The plaintiffs, a limited partnership, entered into a five-year lease on January 16, 1985, guaranteed by Wieslaw Koziura. Following the tenant's default and subsequent vacating of the premises, the plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of contract, ultimately resulting in a stipulated judgment for $50,000 against them, secured by a lien on Kazimierz Koziura's property.
The defendants allege fraud, claiming the plaintiff had transferred its ownership of the shopping center and assigned the leases prior to the lawsuit, thus asserting that the judgment was improperly obtained. The trial court denied their motions, citing failure to file within four months of the judgment and the defendants' representation by counsel during the process.
On appeal, the defendants argue that the court erred in not opening the judgment based on fraud and in not providing a full evidentiary hearing. The court acknowledges that a judgment, even if consented to, may be opened if fraud is demonstrated, and that this power to vacate is inherent, allowing challenges to judgments obtained through fraud at any time. The plaintiff contends that the defendants did not meet the requirements to open the judgment based on fraud.
Intervention by the law is warranted to ensure justice in cases of fraud; however, this must be balanced with the need for finality in legal disputes. A judgment can only be set aside for fraud if specific criteria are met: 1) no unreasonable delay (laches) by the injured party after discovering the fraud; 2) diligence in uncovering the fraud; 3) clear evidence of perjury or fraud; and 4) a significant chance that a new trial would yield a different outcome. The trial court's decision did not consider these factors, and the existence of fraud is a factual question necessitating a hearing to allow evidence presentation and cross-examination. Despite the defendants' attempts to present evidence of fraud and the trial court's acknowledgment of the need for an evidentiary hearing, the court did not conduct one. The reliance on a four-month timeline per Practice Book 326 was deemed erroneous, leading to the judgment being set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings. Additionally, Kazimierz Koziura was named as a defendant due to allegations that his son, Wieslaw Koziura, transferred mortgage interest to him to evade debt obligations.
