Connecticut Judicial Branch
Law Libraries
Copyright © 2000-2024, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved.
2024 Edition
Motion for Clarification
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................... 3
Section 1: Motion for Clarification ....................................................................... 4
Figure 1: Motion for Clarification ...................................................................... 11
Table 1: Selected Superior Court Cases on Motions for Clarification ...................... 12
Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations,
Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit
[email protected]
Clarification - 1
These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent only a
beginning to research. It is the responsibility of the person doing legal research to
come to his or her own conclusions about the authoritativeness, reliability, validity,
and currency of any resource cited in this research guide.
View our other research guides at
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm
This guide links to advance release opinions on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website
and to case law hosted on Google Scholar and Harvard’s Case Law Access Project.
The online versions are for informational purposes only.
References to online legal research databases refer to in-library use of these
databases. Remote access is not available.
Connecticut Judicial Branch Website Policies and Disclaimers
https://www.jud.ct.gov/policies.htm
Clarification - 2
Introduction
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
• “The trial court has jurisdiction to clarify an ambiguous judgment at any time.”
Sosin v. Sosin, 300 Conn. 205, 218, 14 A.3d 307, 316 (2011).
• “Motions for interpretation or clarification, although not specifically described in
the rules of practice, are commonly considered by trial courts and are
procedurally proper.” Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22 Conn. App. 363, 366, 576 A.2d
1317, 1319 (1990).
• “[T]he purpose of a clarification is to take a prior statement, decision or order
and make it easier to understand. Motions for clarification, therefore, may be
appropriate where there is an ambiguous term in a judgment or decision ... but,
not where the movant’s request would cause a substantive change in the existing
decision. Moreover, motions for clarification may be made at any time and are
grounded in the trial court’s equitable authority to protect the integrity of its
judgments.” Light v. Grimes, 136 Conn. App. 161, 166, 43 A.3d 808, 812, cert.
denied, 305 Conn. 926 (2012). (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
• “To determine if the court’s 2019 order was a clarification of the 2018 order,
rather than an alteration or modification, we begin by ‘‘examining the definitions
of both alteration and clarification. An alteration is defined as [a] change of a
thing from one form or state to another; making a thing different from what it
was without destroying its identity. . . . An alteration is an act done upon the
instrument by which its meaning or language is changed. If what is written upon
or erased from the instrument has no tendency to produce this result, or to
mislead any person, it is not an alteration. . . . Similarly, a modification is defined
as [a] change; an alteration or amendment which introduces new elements into
the details or cancels some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of
the subject-matter intact. . . . Conversely, to clarify something means to free it
from confusion. . . . Thus, the purpose of a clarification is to take a prior
statement, decision or order and make it easier to understand.’’ (Citations
omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Perry v. Perry,
supra, 130 Conn. App. 725–26. On the basis of our thorough review of the record
and the language and context of the orders, we conclude that the court clarified,
rather than modified, the 2018 order.” Tannenbaum v. Tannenbaum, 208 Conn.
App. 16, 25–26, 263 A.3d 998, 1004–05 (2021).
Clarification - 3
Section 1: Motion for Clarification
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
SCOPE: Bibliographic resources relating to the postjudgment motion
for clarification.
SEE ALSO: • Motion for Articulation (Research Guide)
• Motion to Reargue (Research Guide)
DEFINITIONS: • “[M]otions for interpretation or clarification, although not
specifically described in the rules of practice, are
commonly considered by trial courts and are procedurally
proper.” State v. Denya, 294 Conn. 516, 528, 986 A.2d
260, 267 (2010).
• “In cases in which execution of the original judgment
occurs over a period of years, a motion for clarification is
an appropriate procedural vehicle to ensure that the
original judgment is properly effectuated.... Motions for
clarification may not, however, be used to modify or to
alter the substantive terms of a prior judgment ... and we
look to the substance of the relief sought by the motion
rather than the form to determine whether a motion is
properly characterized as one seeking a clarification or a
modification.” State v. Denya, 294 Conn. 516, 528-529,
986 A.2d 260, 267 (2010).
• “There is no time restriction imposed on the filing of a
motion for clarification. See Barnard v. Barnard, supra
[214 Conn. 99, 570 A.2d 690 (1990);] (motion for
clarification filed sixteen months after judgment);
Cattaneo v. Cattaneo, [19 Conn. App. 161, 561 A.2d 967
(1989)]; supra (motion for clarification filed six and one-
half years after judgment). Although a judgment may not
be opened or set aside after four months; Practice Book §
326; Blake v. Blake, 211 Conn. 485, 495, 560 A.2d 396
(1989); under the common law, judgments may be
‘corrected’ at any time.” Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22 Conn.
App. 363, 366, 576 A.2d 1317, 1319 (1990).
• “Even beyond the four month time frame set forth in
Practice Book § 17-4, however, courts have ‘continuing
jurisdiction to fashion a remedy appropriate to the
vindication of a prior ... judgment... pursuant to [their]
inherent powers....’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation
marks omitted.) Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. v. Plan &
Zoning Commission, 260 Conn. 232, 239, 796 A.2d 1164
(2002).” Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597, 604, 974 A.2d
641, 648 (2009).
• Compared to Motion for Modification: “[A]
modification is defined as ‘[a] change; an alteration or
amendment which introduces new elements into the
Clarification - 4
details, or cancels some of them, but leaves the general
purpose and effect of the subject-matter intact.’ Black’s
Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990).
Conversely, to clarify something means to ‘free it from
confusion.’ Webster’s New World Dictionary of the
American Language (2d Ed. 1972). Thus, the purpose of a
clarification is to take a prior statement, decision or order
and make it easier to understand. Motions for clarification,
therefore, may be appropriate where there is an
ambiguous term in a judgment or decision . . . but, not
where the movant’s request would cause a substantive
change in the existing decision.” In Re Haley B., 262
Conn. 406, 413, 815 A.2d 113, 117 (2003).
• Contrasted with Motion for Articulation: “The
petitioner’s appeal form also states that the he appeals
from the denial of his motion for clarification. A motion
seeking an articulation or further articulation of a trial
court’s decision is called a motion for articulation. See
Practice Book § 66-5. ‘The sole remedy of any party
desiring the court having appellate jurisdiction to review
the trial court’s decision on the motion filed pursuant to
this section . . . shall be by motion for review under
Section 66-7.’ Practice Book § 66-5. We therefore decline
to review this claim.” [Footnote 2] Woolcock v. Commr. of
Correction, 62 Conn. App. 821, 824, 772 A.2d 684, 687
(2001).
• Latent Ambiguity: “The difficulty with the defendant’s
argument is that it assumes that the court’s initial
allocation of the parties’ pension rights was unambiguous.
Like the pension administrator, the court found, to the
contrary, that its description of the event that would
trigger the defendant’s eligibility for a pension contained a
latent ambiguity. ‘[L]atent ambiguities are those which
appear only as the result of extrinsic or collateral evidence
showing that a word, thought to have but one meaning,
actually has two or more meanings . . . Latent ambiguities
[can] be shown and explained by pleading and parol
proof.’ 11 S. Williston, Contracts (4th Ed. Lord 1999)
§33:40, pp. 816-17; Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Ins. Co.
of Pennsylvania, 231 Conn. 756, 782, 653 A.2d 122
(1995); In re Marriage of Holloway, 299 Mont. 291, 295-
96, 999 P.2d 980 (2000).
Applying the law stated in these authorities, we hold that
the court reasonably found that a latent ambiguity in its
original pension order authorized it to restate its order to
clarify its original intention for the division of the
defendant’s pension rights between the parties. We,
therefore, disagree with the defendant’s characterization
of the court’s order as an impermissible modification of its
Clarification - 5
terms.” Ranfone v. Ranfone, 119 Conn. App. 341, 345-
346, 987 A.2d 1088, 1091 (2010).
RECORDS & • Rosato v. Rosato, 255 Conn. 412, 766 A.2d 429 (2001).
BRIEFS: Figure 1 - Motion For Clarification, Connecticut
Supreme Court Records and Briefs (September 2000).
CASES: • Bologna v. Bologna, 208 Conn. App. 218, 231, 264 A.3d
598, 606 (2021). “The plaintiff's motion for clarification
Once you have does not seek to free from confusion the terms of the
identified useful
cases, it is important separation agreement. Rather, it seeks to amend the
to update the cases separation agreement by introducing a new element into
before you rely on the details of the judgment by seeking a ruling that the
them. Updating case
buyout price be calculated using the mortgages' balances
law means checking
to see if the cases as they were at the time the parties signed the separation
are still good law. agreement or, alternatively, by calculating the price of the
You can contact your buyout as of when the marital home was supposed to be
local law librarian to listed for sale in June, 2012. Such amendment would
learn about the tools
available to you to cause a substantial change in the existing judgment and,
update cases. therefore, is an impermissible modification of the
judgment.”
• Almeida v. Almeida, 190 Conn. App. 760, 768, 213 A.3d
28, 34 (2019). “The plaintiff’s motion sought to change
the substance of the judgment by asking the trial court to
revisit its original judgment and effectuate its original
intent by introducing a new element into its judgment—
that the defendant not just quitclaim whatever interest in
the property he was able to, but that he ‘make whatever
arrangements were necessary’ so as to be able to transfer
his partner’s interest as well. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s
motion more properly is characterized as a motion to
modify because it ‘represent[s] an attempt to alter the
substantive terms of the original judgment.’ Mickey v.
Mickey, 292 Conn. 597, 606, 974 A.2d 641 (2009); see
also In Re Haley B., supra, 262 Conn. 414 (motion for
clarification properly characterized as motion to alter or to
modify original judgment when trial court changed, on
basis of mistake made at trial, visitation order by reducing
frequency of visitation from weekly to monthly visitation
in order to effectuate intent of original judgment); Miller
v. Miller, 16 Conn. App. 412, 416–17, 547 A.2d 922
(motion for clarification improperly modified original
judgment, which allowed defendant to satisfy $500,000
lump sum alimony award by transferring securities to
plaintiff, by subsequently ordering that any securities
transferred to plaintiff in satisfaction of lump sum alimony
award pay dividends of at least $50,000 per year), cert.
denied, 209 Conn. 823, 552 A.2d 430 (1988).”
• De Almeida-Kennedy v. Kennedy, 188 Conn. App. 670,
684-685, 205 A.3d 704, 714-715 (2019). “In the present
case, the court granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for
clarification and awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees ‘as a
Clarification - 6
sanction for bringing a baseless motion.’ The court,
Once you have however, not only failed to find that the defendant had
identified useful
cases, it is important
acted in bad faith, but also by granting in part the
to update the cases defendant’s motion for modification, it cannot be said that
before you rely on the court found the defendant’s claims to be entirely
them. Updating case without color. Accordingly, we conclude that the court
law means checking
to see if the cases
abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff attorney’s
are still good law. fees for opposing the defendant’s motion for
You can contact your modification.”
local law librarian to
learn about the tools
available to you to
• Stewart v. Stewart, 157 Conn. App. 601, 610, 117 A.3d
update cases. 958, 963 (2015). “We begin with our standard of review.
‘In order to determine whether the trial court properly
clarified ambiguity in the judgment or impermissibly
modified or altered the substantive terms of the
judgment, we must first construe the trial court’s
judgment. It is well established that the construction of a
judgment presents a question of law over which we
exercise plenary review.... In construing a trial court’s
judgment, [t]he determinative factor is the intention of
the court as gathered from all parts of the judgment....
The interpretation of a judgment may involve the
circumstances surrounding the making of the judgment....
Effect must be given to that which is clearly implied as
well as to that which is expressed.... The judgment should
admit of a consistent construction as a whole.... In
addition ... because the trial judge who issues the order
that is the subject of subsequent clarification is familiar
with the entire record and, of course, with the order itself,
that judge is in the best position to clarify any ambiguity
in the order. For that reason, substantial deference is
accorded to a court’s interpretation of its own order....
Accordingly, we will not disturb a trial court’s clarification
of an ambiguity in its own order unless the court’s
interpretation of that order is manifestly unreasonable.’
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Bauer v. Bauer, 308 Conn. 124, 131–32, 60 A.3d 950
(2013).’”
• Clark v. Clark, 150 Conn. App. 551, 571-572, 91 A.3d
944, 955-956 (2014). “Although the defendant
characterizes the court’s orders as a modification and, in
discussing the orders at issue, the court used the word
‘modify’ several times, ‘neither of these factors influences
the actual nature of the motion or the court’s responsive
ruling. It has been recognized by both this court and our
Supreme Court that despite the movant’s or the trial
court’s characterization of a motion reviewing court
examines the practical effect of the responsive ruling in
determining the nature of the pleading.... On review, we
look to the substance of the relief sought by the motion
and the practical effect of the trial court’s responsive
ruling.’ (Citations omitted.) Fewtrell v. Fewtrell, 87 Conn.
App. 526, 532, 865 A.2d 1240 (2005)…. The court’s
Clarification - 7
clarification order merely determined that the original
Once you have judgment and any subsequent court orders had never
identified useful
cases, it is important
prohibited the plaintiff from exercising the statutorily
to update the cases mandated right to access afforded to him by § 46b-56
before you rely on (g). The court’s orders did not alter the judgment of
them. Updating case dissolution or result in a modification of the original
law means checking
to see if the cases
judgment or any prior order. We find that the court did
are still good law. not abuse its discretion or act unreasonably in clarifying
You can contact your and enforcing the plaintiff’s right . . .”
local law librarian to
learn about the tools
available to you to
• Bauer v. Bauer, 308 Conn. 124, 134-135, 60 A.3d 950,
update cases. 957 (2013). “The trial court, which was in the best
position to resolve the discrepancy between the factual
findings and the orders, clarified that the defendant was,
in fact, required to split his pension accounts equally with
the plaintiff. Not only was this interpretation reasonable,
but any other interpretation would have rendered the trial
court’s factual finding superfluous and inconsistent with
its orders. Moreover, the clarification merely reiterated
the factual finding as originally stated and, thus, did not
change or modify the judgment. Because the trial court’s
clarification was not manifestly unreasonable, we conclude
that the Appellate Court improperly reversed the trial
court’s judgment on the motion for clarification.”
• Light v. Grimes, 136 Conn. App. 161, 166, 43 A.3d 808,
811 cert. denied, 305 Conn. 926 (2012). “The court
explained that: ‘The date of judgment is May 9, 2008. The
date of the court’s ruling on the plaintiff’s motion for
clarification cannot as a matter of law be the basis for the
date of judgment. A motion for clarification is a
postjudgment motion which does not modify or alter the
substantive terms of a prior judgment.’”
• Sosin v. Sosin, 300 Conn. 205, 220, 14 A.3d 307, 317
(2011). “Finally, the trial court effectively clarified its
intent with respect to the asset distribution when it denied
the defendant’s amended motion for reargument. The fact
that the trial court declined to correct the judgment to
reflect the actual dollar amounts in the bank and
brokerage accounts indicates that those specific dollar
amounts had not been a critical component of the trial
court’s judgment. Cf. State v. Denya, 294 Conn. 516,
531, 986 A.2d 260 (2010) (‘[B]ecause the trial judge who
issues the order that is the subject of subsequent
clarification is familiar with the entire record and, of
course, with the order itself, that judge is in the best
position to clarify any ambiguity in the order. For that
reason, substantial deference is accorded to a court’s
interpretation of its own order.’).”
• Von Kohorn v. Von Kohorn, 132 Conn. App. 709, 716, 33
A.3d 809, 813 (2011). “The court, by granting the
plaintiff’s request for clarification, lacked the authority to
Clarification - 8
alter the substantive terms of the prior judgment beyond
Once you have
identified useful
those terms that it determined were omitted from the
cases, it is important original order. See Mickey v. Mickey, supra, 292 Conn. at
to update the cases 604–605, 974 A.2d 641. It also lacked any authority to
before you rely on make substantive changes pursuant to General Statutes §
them. Updating case
law means checking
52–212a or Practice Book §§ 17–4 and 11–11 because
to see if the cases the court did not grant reargument of the terms of the
are still good law. alimony orders, and the court reasonably could not have
You can contact your treated the plaintiff’s post-judgment motion as a motion
local law librarian to
learn about the tools
to open the judgment and modify the alimony award
available to you to because such relief was neither directly nor implicitly
update cases. requested in the postjudgment motion. We conclude that
the court’s sua sponte alteration of the alimony order
from a lifetime award to a term of eight years was an
abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse that portion
of the court’s July 13, 2010 order.”
• Fuller v. Fuller, 119 Conn. App. 105, 112, 987 A.2d 1040,
1045 (2010). “‘[T]he trial court’s continuing jurisdiction to
effectuate its prior judgments, either by summarily
ordering compliance with a clear judgment or by
interpreting an ambiguous judgment and entering orders
to effectuate the judgment as interpreted, is grounded in
its inherent powers, and is not limited to cases wherein
the noncompliant party is in contempt, family cases,
cases involving injunctions, or cases wherein the parties
have agreed to continuing jurisdiction.’ Avalon Bay
Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 260
Conn. 232, 246, 796 A.2d 1164 (2002).”
• Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597, 605, 974 A.2d 641, 648
(2009). “In the present case, the defendant filed a motion
for clarification, asserting that postdissolution events
revealed a latent ambiguity in the dissolution judgment as
to whether the trial court intended to distribute the
defendant’s disability benefits in connection with its
distribution of the parties’ marital property.”
• Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713, 720, 784 A.2d 890,
895 (2001). “…the present case, we conclude that where
there is an ambiguous term in a judgment, a party must
seek a clarification upon motion rather than resort to self-
help. The appropriate remedy for doubt about the
meaning of a judgment is to seek a judicial resolution of
any ambiguity; it is not to resort to self-help.”
• Coscina v. Coscina, 24 Conn. App. 190, 192, 587 A.2d
159, 160 (1991). “In prior cases where a plaintiff was
seeking to clarify a marital dissolution agreement, a
motion for clarification of judgment was employed with
approval. See Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22 Conn. App. 363,
366, 576 A.2d 1317 (1990), and cases cited therein. The
trial court here accepted the plaintiff’s complaint for a
declaratory judgment coupled with a request for monetary
Clarification - 9
damages. Although an alternative form of action was
available, namely the motion for clarification of judgment,
we do not disapprove of the trial court’s proceeding as it
did.”
• Miller v. Miller, 16 Conn. App. 412, 413, 547 A.2d 922,
923 (1988). “The defendant appeals from a postjudgment
ruling of the trial court in this dissolution action on a
motion for clarification filed by the plaintiff.”
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: • 46 Am Jur 2d Judgments, Thomson West, 2017 (Also
available on Westlaw).
§ 65. Court’s authority to interpret and clarify judgment
TEXTS & • A Practical Guide to Divorce in Connecticut, Hon. Barry F.
TREATISES: Armata and Campbell D. Barrett, editors, Massachusetts
Continuing Legal Education, 2013, with 2018 supplement.
Each of our law Chapter 16. Appellate Procedure and Posttrial Motions
libraries own the § 16.2.2(c). Posttrial Motions— Motion for
Connecticut treatises
cited. You can Clarification
contact us or visit
our catalog to • 8A Connecticut Practice Series, Family Law and Practice
determine which of with Forms, 3d ed., by Arnold H. Rutkin, et al., Thomson
our law libraries own
the other treatises West, 2010, with 2022-2023 supplement (also available
cited or to search for on Westlaw).
more treatises. Chapter 52. Postjudgment Motions
§ 52:3. Motion for articulation or clarification
References to online
databases refer to
in-library use of • LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Family Law, Louise
these databases. Truax, editor, 2024 ed., LexisNexis.
Remote access is not Chapter 16. Appellate Procedure
available.
§ 16.07. CHECKLIST: Filing motions in anticipation
or while the appeal is pending
§ 16.08. Filing motions after the decision but
before filing an appeal
§ 16.13. Filing a motion for clarification
LAW REVIEWS: • Wesley W. Horton and Kenneth J. Bartschi, 2009
Appellate Review, 84 Connecticut Bar Journal 1, 8-9
Public access to law (2010).
review databases is
available on-site at
each of our law • Arthur E. Balbirer and Gaetano Ferro, Survey Of 1990
libraries. Developments in Connecticut Family Law, 65 Connecticut
Bar Journal 103, 121 (1991).
• C. Ian McLachlan and Cynthia C. George, Survey of
Developments in Connecticut Family Law, 63 Connecticut
Bar Journal 131, 142-143 (1989).
Clarification - 10
Figure 1: Motion for Clarification
No. _________________________ Superior Court
_____________________________ Judicial District of ____________
(First Named Plaintiff)
v. at _________________________
_____________________________ ___________________________
(First Named Defendant) (Date)
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
The defendant, , in the above referenced action hereby respectfully represents
as follows:
1. On July 11, 1998 a judgment of dissolution of marriage entered by this Court (_
,J.)
2. This Court’s oral memorandum of decision and the party’s judgment file set forth,
in relevant part, as follows: “The wife is to retain any benefits in the husband’s
pension which she currently has, as his spouse...”
3. As of the date of this motion the defendant has received none of the plaintiff’s
pension benefits.
4. The United States Office of Personnel Management has refused to convey the
plaintiff’s pension interest to the defendant pursuant to the submitted domestic
relations order.
WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully requests that this Court clarify its decision
and set forth the exact percentage interest of plaintiff’s pension which is due to the
defendant.
THE DEFENDANT
BY __________________
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
TESTIMONY REQUIRED
[Heading, Form 105.1, 2 Conn. Practice Book (1997).]
[Motion For Clarification, Connecticut Supreme Court Records and Briefs (September
2000). Rosato v. Rosato, 255 Conn. 412, 766 A.2d 429 (2001).]
Clarification - 11
Table 1: Selected Superior Court Cases on Motions for Clarification
Selected Superior Court Cases:
Motion for Clarification
Jones v. Jones, “‘A motion for clarification is an appropriate procedural
Superior Court, Judicial vehicle to ensure that the original judgment is properly
District of Stamford- effectuated ... Motions for clarification may not,
Norwalk at Stamford, however, be used to modify or to alter the substantive
No. FSTFA950143869S terms of a prior judgment.’ Von Kohorn v. Von Kohorn,
(March 4, 2015) (2015 132 Conn. App. 709, 714 (2011). A motion for
Conn. Super. Lexis clarification although not specifically described in the
494) (2015 WL rules of practice, is commonly considered by trial courts
1427354). and is procedurally proper. Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22
Conn. App. 363, 366 (1990). ‘There is no time restriction
for filing a motion for clarification.’ Barnard v. Barnard,
214 Conn. 99, 100 (1990).
‘This trial court has jurisdiction to clarify an ambiguous
judgment at any time.’ Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. v.
Plan & Zoning Commission, 260 Conn. 232, 246 (2002);
State v. Denya, 294 Conn. 516, 533, fn.10 (2010).
Indeed, ‘courts have continuing jurisdiction to fashion a
remedy appropriate to the vindication of a prior ...
judgment ... pursuant to [their] inherent powers ...
[Thus] [w]hen an ambiguity in the language of a prior
judgment has arisen as a result of postjudgment events
... a trial court may, at any time, exercise its continuing
jurisdiction to effectuate its prior [judgment] ... by
interpreting [the] ambiguous judgment and entering
orders to effectuate the judgment as interpreted ... In
cases in which execution of the original judgment occurs
over a period of years, a motion for clarification is an
appropriate procedural vehicle to ensure that the original
judgment is properly effectuated ... Motions for
clarification may not, however, be used to modify or to
alter the substantive terms of a prior judgment ... and
we look to the substance of the relief sought by the
motion rather than the form to determine whether a
motion is properly characterized as one seeking a
clarification or a modification.’ (Citations omitted;
internal quotation marks omitted.) Mickey v. Mickey,
supra, 292 Conn. 64-05; cf. Rome v. Album, 73 Conn.
App. 103, 109, 807 A.2d 1017 (2002) (‘[when] the
movant’s request would cause a substantive modification
of an existing judgment, a motion to open or set aside
the judgment would normally be necessary’). State v.
Denya, supra, 294 Conn. 528-29.”
Clarification - 12
Edlam v. Beeks, “‘Motions for articulation or clarification, although not
Superior Court, Judicial specifically described in the rules of practice, are
District of New London commonly considered by trial courts and are
at Norwich, No. procedurally proper.’ Holcombe v. Holcombe, 22 Conn.
FA094110621S (March App. 363, 366 (1990). Clarifications are appropriate
4, 2014) (2014 Conn. when the trial court failed to rule on a matter.
Super. Lexis 515) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210,
(2014 WL 1283926). 232 (2003). It is the proper procedural vehicle to ask
the trial judge to rule on an overlooked matter. Wallenta
v. Moscowitz, 81 Conn. App. 213, 230, cert. denied, 268
Conn. 909 (2004). Clarifications are not to be used by
the trial court to ‘substitute a new decision [or] to
change the reasoning or basis of a prior decision.’
Walshon v. Walshon, 42 Conn. App. 651, 655–56
(1996).”
R.T. Vanderbilt Co., “Lastly, the plaintiff asks the court to clarify its decision.
Inc. v. Hartford As to a motion for clarification, ‘where the movant’s
Accident & Indemnity request would cause a substantive modification of an
Co., Superior Court, existing judgment, a motion to open or set aside the
Judicial District of judgment would normally be necessary.’ Rome v. Album,
Waterbury, Complex 73 Conn. App. 103, 109 (2002). While the court’s
Litigation Docket at findings from the first phase of the trial were purposely
Waterbury, No. narrow and limited, the plaintiff’s request for clarification
X02UWYCV075016321 would effectively require the court to modify its order to
(April 22, 2013) (2013 make determinations that have been left for the second
Conn. Super. Lexis phase of the trial. Such actions, if taken by the court,
901) (2013 WL would be improper and inconsistent with the prior
1943943). actions of the court bifurcating the trial for the purpose
of considering certain issues or claims in a scheduled
sequence.”
Cohen v. Tziolis, “The plaintiffs agree with the statement of law in the
Superior Court, Judicial defendants’ Response to plaintiffs’ Motion for
District of Fairfield at Clarification and Contempt dated December 13, 2012,
Bridgeport, No. where the defendants stated that the Court lacks
CV116020149S authority to modify its decision because such an action
(February 27, 2013) may only be done pursuant to a motion to open or set
(2013 Conn. Super. aside the decision which must be filed within four
Lexis 445) (2013 WL months of the decision itself. Thus, any such attempt to
1189328). modify the Court’s February 8, 2012 Decision would be
untimely and not be allowed. See Perry v. Perry, 130
Conn. App. 720, 733-34 (2011) (reversing trial court
decision granting plaintiff’s motion for clarification
because motion was actually a motion to modify the
judgment that was not filed within four months as
required by General Statutes §52-212a).”
O'Brien v. Davis, 49 “No motion for articulation has been filed. No appeal has
Conn. Supp. 474, 482- been filed. There is no provision in the Practice Book for
Clarification - 13
483, 894 A.2d 1072, a motion for articulation to be filed in a case that has not
1076-1077 (2005). been appealed. Practice Book §§ 60-5, 63-1, 66-5 and
66-7. Brycki v. Brycki, 91 Conn. App. 579, 594, 881
A.2d 1056 (2005).”
---
"The motion for clarification cannot be used to create a
new order or change the legal effect of the existing
order. AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning
Commission, 260 Conn. 232, 246, 796 A.2d 1164
(2002); Robinson v. Robinson, 86 Conn.App. 719, 723,
862 A.2d 326 (2004); Walshon v. Walshon, 42
Conn.App. 651, 656, 681 A.2d 376 (1996); Roberts v.
Roberts, 32 Conn.App. 465, 473, 629 A.2d 1160
(1993); Koper v. Koper, 17 Conn.App. 480, 484, 553
A.2d 1162 (1989). This court finds that the portion of
the defendant's motion requesting clarification dated
May 25, 2005 is properly before it.
The defendant claims three forms of relief in her motion
for clarification: (1) a determination that the entire
matter has been returned to the docket for all purposes;
(2) a determination that the court did not delegate the
ruling on the motion to open to the plaintiff for the
plaintiff to decide to attend or not to attend parenting
education; and, (3) a determination that the February 7,
2005 order on the motion to open was not conditional.
ORDER
The motion for clarification is granted and the court
restates its February 7, 2005 order using the words that
it intended with the meaning that it intended on that
date: ‘Motion to Open granted since you failed to comply
with the Parenting Education Program.’”
Clarification - 14
