author: ROBINSON, J.

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ARTHUR GLEN KURRUS
    (AC 32772)
    (AC 32773)
    Robinson, Espinosa and Bishop, Js.

      Argued May 24 —
    officially released August 21, 2012

      Richard Emanuel, for the appellant (defendant).

      Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David Shepack, state’s attorney, and Devin T. Stilson, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

The defendant, Arthur Glen Kurrus, appeals from the judgments of conviction rendered after a jury trial of two counts of larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 and 53a-122 (a) (3) and one count of forgery in the second degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-139. He claims on appeal that (1) the court erred in refusing his request to charge on the theory of defense of mistake of fact as to all counts, (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on one of the larceny counts and (3) the prosecutor engaged in impropriety during closing arguments. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In 2003, Steven Cohen owned a 1967 Austin Healey (1967 Healey) that he decided to sell. He contacted the defendant, and they orally agreed that the defendant would sell the vehicle and set the price, but they did not create a written contract or agreement. The next day, the defendant sent a truck to retrieve the vehicle.

From 2003 until 2007, Cohen maintained infrequent contact with the defendant by telephone and e-mail. Beginning in April, 2007, Cohen began e-mailing the defendant more frequently for updates on the sale of the 1967 Healey. In July, 2007, after learning that the defendant had moved his business to California, Cohen contacted the defendant by e-mail to determine where the 1967 Healey was located. In August, 2007, Cohen received a faxed letter from the defendant promising to pay $26,000 for the sale of the vehicle. At some point after receiving the faxed letter from the defendant, Cohen contacted the police to report that the 1967 Healey had been stolen. In September, 2008, Cohen received a check in the amount of $25,000 from the defendant’s attorney.

In April, 2005, Michael Torsone purchased a 1967 Jaguar XKE (1967 Jaguar) and registered the vehicle in New York. Later in 2005, Torsone decided to have Donovan Motorcar Services (Donovan) perform restoration work on the vehicle. In June, 2006, Torsone retrieved the car from Donovan prior to the completion of brake and front end work. After unsuccessfully trying to complete the brake work himself, Torsone contacted the defendant. The defendant told him to bring the car to his business, Paradise Garage, in Lime Rock, Connecticut. After dropping off the 1967 Jaguar, Tor-sone had conversations with the defendant during which Torsone detailed what work he wanted completed as well as whether he wanted to sell the car.

Torsone did not have a written contract with the defendant but had an oral agreement that allowed the defendant to keep the 1967 Jaguar in his showroom and to talk to people about whether they would want to purchase the vehicle. The defendant set up several auctions for the 1967 Jaguar in October, 2006, as well as in March, April and May, 2007.

By May, 2007, the defendant had engaged in what he characterized as a “cash and trade” deal that involved four vehicles: Cohen’s 1967 Healey, Torsone’s 1967 Jaguar, a 1960 Austin Healey (1960 Healey) owned by a third party and a 1972 Porsche 911 owned by the defendant. The defendant traded Cohen’s 1967 Healey for the 1960 Healey, sold the Porsche for $25,000 and sold Torsone’s 1967 Jaguar for $68,500 to a couple in New Hampshire, Melvin Flowers and Shirley Flowers. In order to effectuate the sale of the 1967 Jaguar, the defendant instructed an acquaintance, Frank Saffloti, to sign the New York state registration for the 1967 Jaguar over to Paradise Garage and to sign Torsone’s name. Torsone spoke to the defendant about the sale of the 1967 Jaguar on June 17, 2007, and contacted the state police to report that his car had been stolen.

In the amended information, the defendant was charged with larceny in the first degree of the 1967 Jaguar in count one, forgery in the second degree as an accessory of the registration document to the 1967 Jaguar in count two and larceny in the first degree of the 1967 Healey in count three. The jury found him guilty on all counts. The court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, execution suspended after three years, and five years probation with conditions. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The defendant first claims that the court improperly refused his request to instruct the jury concerning the defense of mistake of fact on all three counts. The defendant claims that the failure to include the defendant’s charge of mistake of fact, based on General Statutes § 53a-6, violated his constitutional rights to present a defense and to a fair trial, as set forth in the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, §§ 8 and 9, of the constitution of Connecticut, as there was an evidentiary foundation for the requested instruction as to each count. The state disputes that there was evidentiary support for the requested instruction. We agree with the state.

“We begin with the well established standard of review governing the defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s jury instruction. Our review of the defendant’s claim requires that we examine the [trial] court’s entire charge to determine whether it is reasonably possible that the jury could have been misled by the omission of the requested instruction. . . . While a request to charge that is relevant to the issues in a case and that accurately states the applicable law must be honored, a [trial] court need not tailor its charge to the precise letter of such a request. ... As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 454-55, 10 A.3d 942 (2011).

“When considering a claim of failure to deliver a requested charge . . . [t]he court . . . has a duty not to submit to the jury, in its charge, any issue upon which the evidence would not reasonably support a finding.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Woods, 250 Conn. 807, 818, 740 A.2d 371 (1999). “An error in instructions in a criminal case is reversible error when it is shown that it is reasonably possible for errors of constitutional dimension or reasonably probable for noncon-stitutional errors that the jury [was] misled.” State v. Mason, 186 Conn. 574, 585-86, 442 A.2d 1335 (1982).

“When a defendant admits the commission of the crime charged but seeks to excuse or justify its commission so that legal responsibility for the act is avoided, a theory of defense charge is appropriate.” State v. Rosado, 178 Conn. 704, 707, 425 A.2d 108 (1979). “[A] defendant is entitled to have instructions presented relating to any theory of defense for which there is any foundation in the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fuller, 199 Conn. 273, 278, 506 A.2d 556 (1986). Mistake of fact is a legally permissible defense that has been codified in § 53a-6. See State v. Rouleau, 204 Conn. 240, 250 n.12, 528 A.2d 343 (1987). Accordingly, “[a]n instruction on mistake of fact is required only when evidence supporting [this] . . . defense is placed before a jury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 274, 717 A.2d 168 (1998). Moreover, the court “must adopt the version of the facts most favorable to the defendant which the evidence would reasonably support.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fuller, supra, 275.

“No area of the substantive criminal law has traditionally been surrounded by more confusion than that of ignorance or mistake of fact_” 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law (2d Ed. 2003) § 5.6 (a), p. 394. “In actuality, the basic rule is extremely simple: ignorance or mistake of fact ... is a defense when it negatives the existence of a mental state essential to the crime charged. . . . Instead of speaking of ignorance or mistake of fact ... as a defense, it would be just as easy to note simply that the defendant cannot be convicted when it is shown that he does not have the mental state required by law for commission of that particular offense.” Id., p. 395.

Our Supreme Court has stated that “[a] mistake of fact results when one makes an erroneous perception of the facts as they actually exist. . . . The defense arises only where the defendant misperceives an objective state of existing fact, and does not apply to the defendant’s erroneous suppositions as to the unformed intentions of another. A fact is that which has taken place, not something that might or might not take place in the future.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Silveira, 198 Conn. 454, 460-61, 503 A.2d 599 (1986). Stated in other words, a mistake of fact “is a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justified the act or omission which is the subject of a criminal prosecution.” 21 Am. Jur. 2d 262, Criminal Law § 153 (2008).

A

We first consider the defendant’s claim that the court erred in not including in its instructions to the jury a mistake of fact charge as to the larceny counts. We disagree.

In the present case, the state argued that neither Torsone nor Cohen authorized the defendant to execute a cash and trade deal with their vehicles. On the other hand, the defendant’s position was that he had express authority to proceed with the cash and trade deal. The defendant testified that he received authorization from Cohen to trade his 1967 Healey in exchange for the 1960 Healey that was owned by a third party after telling Cohen that the 1960 Healey would be easier to sell and that Cohen would receive $25,000. The defendant further testified that he first broached the subject of a cash and trade deal with Torsone after several conversations about how the 1967 Jaguar was not reaching a high enough price on the eBay auctions. According to the defendant, Torsone accepted a proposal whereby the defendant would give Torsone $20,000 and the 1960 Healey to sell to Torsone’s friend for $45,000. Subsequently, the defendant testified, he traded the 1967 Healey for the 1960 Healey on the basis of Torsone’s representations that he had a buyer for the 1960 Healey and he sold the 1967 Jaguar.

The defendant’s request to charge was based on the assertions of his attorney that the defendant misper-ceived his authority to engage in the cash and trade deal when in fact he did not have such authority. In order to support the defense of mistake of fact, the evidence would have had to show that the defendant did not have authorization to conduct the cash and trade deal and that there was some ambiguity in the words and actions of Cohen and Torsone that led the defendant to believe that he had authorization. His contention that he had express authorization from Cohen and Torsone, however, prevents an assertion of mistake of fact. The defendant did not testify that he misper-ceived Cohen’s and Torsone’s refusals to give authority, but rather that they did in fact give such authority. Simply stating that he had express authority and arguing that he was mistaken is not enough to bring the defendant’s claim under the ambit of mistake of fact. Although fashioned in terms of mistake of fact, the defendant’s claim is in reality nothing more than a denial of the intent to wrongfully withhold the 1967 Healey and 1967 Jaguar. See State v. Silveira, supra, 198 Conn. 462. This, however, is not a legally recognized defense under our law. See State v. Rosada, supra, 178 Conn. 707 (“[a] claim of innocence or a denial of participation in the crime charged is not a legally recognized defense and does not entitle a defendant to a theory of defense charge”).

Moreover, even if he could argue that he misunderstood Cohen’s and Torsone’s express authorizations, the defendant presented no evidence that there was a mistake of fact as to his authority to conduct the cash and trade deal. The defendant did not testify or present any evidence that Cohen’s or Torsone’s authorizations were ambiguous such that he misperceived his authority to engage in the cash and trade deal. Nor was there any evidence that the defendant found his perception of his authority to be incorrect. “[T]here was no evidence tending to show a factual mistake on the part of the defendant’s comprehension of the circumstances to be tested by the jury.” State v. Beltran, supra, 246 Conn. 274. Thus, the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on mistake of fact on the larceny counts.

B

The defendant also claims that the court improperly failed to instruct the jury on mistake of fact as to the forgery as an accessory count. We disagree.

The defendant testified that he believed that he had authority from Torsone to sign his name on the registration on the basis of the defendant’s understanding of how the sale of the 1967 Jaguar and trade of the other vehicles was going to proceed. Again, however, the defendant’s position is merely a denial of intent. His position at trial was that he had authority to act, not that he misperceived Torsone’s words or actions as authorization to complete the cash and trade deal and to sign the registration.

Additionally, the defendant presented no facts to the jury that revealed how he came to his understanding. There was no testimony or evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant misperceived an objective state of existing fact. See State v. Silveira, supra, 198 Conn. 460. Rather, the defendant’s testimony belied “erroneous suppositions as to the unformed intentions of another.” Id., 460-61. Thus, an instruction on mistake of fact with respect to the forgery as an accessory count was unwarranted, and the court did not err in refusing to give such a charge.

fi

The defendant’s second claim of error is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction on the larceny of the 1967 Healey. We disagree.

The jury could have found the following additional facts. In May, 2003, Cohen composed a letter to the defendant regarding documentation about the 1967 Healey. In the letter, Cohen noted that he recognized that the market value of the car might not correlate to the amount of money that he had expended on it for restoration and that he would rely on the defendant to price the car appropriately.

On April 14, 2007, Cohen contacted the defendant by e-mail stating: “I hope we have the opportunity to sell my [1967] Healey this spring as I am very anxious to move the car. I appreciate your patience in trying to get a good price. At this point I recognize that I will have to take a hit, but I would really like to finally sell it.” The defendant responded on April 16, 2007, stating: “I’m confident in closing the deal we spoke of in our last conversation.” He also declared that he was planning the deal to take place in April and would keep in touch with Cohen.

Cohen e-mailed the defendant again on May 15, 2007, asking about the sale of the 1967 Healey. The defendant responded the same day and assured Cohen that the deal was “alive andlwell.” Cohen replied and said that he was “glad to hear that [the] deal is alive. Just let me know when things are concluded.”

On June 12,2007, Cohen again e-mailed the defendant looking for information about the 1967 Healey. After detailing several improvements that he had made to the car, Cohen noted that he saw “a number of cars that are in inferior condition to mine going for prices that I would find acceptable at this point. ... I certainly don’t want the car back after all this time and have the hassle of selling it myself. It’s just that at this point, after four years, I’d like to know what the prospects are for selling it under our present arrangement.”

Cohen again e-mailed the defendant on July 26, 2007. The e-mail stated: “I just discovered from your website that you are moving. I have not heard from you since it sounded like you had a promising transaction involving my [1967] Healey a couple of months ago. ... I am still hoping you can sell my car, but I’d like to know where it is at the moment and what your plans are.”

In August, 2007, Cohen received a faxed handwritten letter from the defendant. It stated: “This written document will confirm my debt to you for sale of your 1967 . . . Healey for $25,000. As you recall [from] our conversations in January and February and subsequent emails outlining a trade for a 1960 . . . Healey that I consider a superior example and one special enough that I would take possession of and own personally and pay you directly. I am comfortable with having you hold ownership documents to both vehicles until you’re paid in full. I’m also aware of your experience with your [1967] Healey was not a good one, so I’m willing to share the 1960 one with you so you can see how great one of these cars can be. This can be a win win for both of us.”

The defendant claims that the state did not prove that he wrongfully withheld the 1967 Healey. The defendant contends that e-mails between himself and Cohen talking about a “deal” constituted authorization for the cash and trade deal and that the prosecution failed to establish that Cohen had revoked his authority prior to the trade of his 1967 Healey. Moreover, the defendant argues, although Cohen may have had understandings or impressions about the nature of their arrangement, there was no evidence that such impressions were communicated to the defendant. Thus, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he wrongfully withheld the 1967 Healey.

We begin by noting that “[t]he standards governing our review of a sufficiency of evidence claim are well established and rigorous. . . . [I]t is not the function of this court to sit as the seventh juror when we review the sufficiency of the evidence . . . rather, we must determine, in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, whether the totality of the evidence, including reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the jury’s verdict .... In making this determination, [t]he evidence must be given the most favorable construction in support of the verdict of which it is reasonably capable. ... In other words, [i]f the jury could reasonably have reached its conclusion, the verdict must stand, even if this court disagrees with it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carrano v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 279 Conn. 622, 656-57, 904 A.2d 149 (2006).

“While . . . every element [must be] proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense, each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ... If it is reasonable and logical for the jury to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the jury is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . Moreover, [i]n evaluating evidence that could yield contrary inferences, the [jury] is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant’s innocence. ... As we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt . . . nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the [jury], would have resulted in an acquittal. ... On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the jury’s verdict of guilty.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Youngs, 97 Conn. App. 348, 353-64, 904 A.2d 1240, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 930, 909 A.2d 959 (2006).

In addition to the e-mail communications between Cohen and the defendant, Cohen testified that he reached a point where he was no longer comfortable waiting for the defendant to sell the 1967 Healey. Cohen also testified that he agreed to sell the vehicle for $25,000 after he discovered that the defendant had relocated and realized that he did not know where his car was located. In August, 2007, prior to receiving the faxed letter from the defendant, Cohen testified that he told the defendant by telephone that, if he did not receive money immediately, he would go to the authorities. Additionally, Cohen testified that he had no recollection of any conversation about a trade deal, that he never agreed to anything in the faxed letter and that the first time he heard about a trade was in the letter.

On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have concluded that Cohen did not know that his 1967 Healey was being traded for the 1960 Healey and that he did not authorize the trade. The jury logically could have inferred that Cohen was aware of and authorized only the sale of his vehicle. It did not have to accept the defendant’s position that the e-mail communications about a trade deal constituted Cohen’s knowledge about and authorization of the trade of his 1967 Healey. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that by August, 2007, the defendant wrongfully withheld the 1967 Healey.

Ill

The final claim raised by the defendant is that he is entitled to a new trial due to prosecutorial impropriety. The defendant argues that the prosecutor’s reference to the word “victims” in his closing argument deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The state responds that the references to “victims” were not improper, and, even if the court should find that they were improper, there was no harm to the defendant. We conclude that the remarks were not improper.

Our standard of review is well settled. “[I]n analyzing claims of prosecutorial [impropriety], we engage in a two step analytical process. The two steps are separate and distinct: (1) whether [impropriety] occurred in the first instance; and (2) whether that [impropriety] deprived a defendant of his due process right to a fair trial. . . . [0]ur determination of whether any improper conduct by the state’s attorney violated the defendant’s fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams, [204 Conn. 623, 640, 529 A.2d 663 (1987)], with due consideration of whether that [impropriety] was objected to at trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354, 361-62, 897 A.2d 569 (2006). These factors include “the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the [impropriety] . . . the frequency of the [impropriety] . . . the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted.)States. Williams, supra, 540.

“[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial, the burden is on the defendant to show, not only that the remarks were improper, but also that, considered in light of the whole trial, the improprieties were so egregious that they amounted to a denial of due process. . . . On the other hand ... if the defendant raises a claim that the prosecutorial improprieties infringed a specifically enumerated constitutional right, such as the fifth amendment right to remain silent or the sixth amendment right to confront one’s accusers, and the defendant meets his burden of establishing the constitutional violation, the burden is then on the state to prove that the impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 562-63, 34 A.3d 370 (2012).

“Our Supreme Court has stated that a court’s repeated use of the word victim with reference to the complaining witness is inappropriate when the issue at trial is whether a crime has been committed. ... A different set of circumstances exists when the person making the reference to the complaining witness is the prosecutor.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 107 Conn. App. 685, 701, 946 A.2d 294, cert. denied, 288 Conn. 904, 953 A.2d 650 (2008). Although the repeated use of the words “victim,” “murder” and “murder weapon” throughout trial by the prosecutor is improper; State v. Albino, 130 Conn. App. 745, 762, 24 A.3d 602, cert. granted on other grounds, 302 Conn. 940, 941, 29 A.3d 466 (2011); isolated use of the term “victim” is neither improper nor prejudicial. State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163, 191, 20 A.3d 669 (no impropriety where prosecutor used term victim in response to hearsay objection made by defense counsel), cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 683, 181 L. Ed. 2d 429 (2011); see also State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. 369-70 (prosecutor’s reference to “victim” twice during closing arguments not improper); State v. Rodriguez, supra, 107 Conn. App. 701-703 (prosecutor’s use of term victim sporadically when questioning two of seven witnesses and at closing argument does not constitute prosecu-torial impropriety).

In State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. 369, the defendant argued that the prosecutor’s two references to a victim during closing and rebuttal argument prematurely stigmatized the defendant of being guilty even though the case revolved around whether a crime had occurred. The court cautioned “the state . . . against making excessive use of the term victim to describe a complainant when the commission of a crime is at issue because prevalent use of the term may cause the jury to draw an improper inference that the defendant committed a crime against the complainant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 370 n.7. Nevertheless, it concluded that reference to the term victim in that case was not improper because “the jury was likely to understand that the state’s identification of the complainant as the victim reflected the state’s contention that, based on the state’s evidence, the complainant was the victim of the alleged crimes.” Id., 370.

Similarly, in State v. Rodriguez, supra, 107 Conn. App. 700-701, the defendant argued that the prosecutor’s use of the word victim during direct examination and during closing argument constituted prosecutorial impropriety. In concluding that the prosecutor’s use of the word victim was not improper, this court noted that “[b]efore the prosecutor got into the heart of his argument, he stated to the jury that what he was about to say was argument, not evidence . . . [and] that argument is how counsel interprets the evidence.” Id., 702. This court also noted that the cotut “instructed the jury that the arguments of counsel reflected their view of the evidence.” Id., 702 n.ll. This court further explained that “[j]urors understand the respective roles of the prosecutor and defense counsel. It should not be assumed that jurors will be unduly influenced by the prosecutor’s use of the word victim.” Id., 703.

The present case is factually similar to Warholic and Rodriguez. In this case, the prosecutor used the word victims three times at the end of his closing argument. At the beginning of his closing argument, however, he told the jury that his statements were argument, not under oath or testimony, and that they consisted of points that he wanted them to consider. Moreover, in its jury instructions, the court told the jurors that counsels’ closing arguments were not testimony, but merely statements that help the jury interpret the evidence. We will not assume that the jurors were unduly influenced by the prosecutor’s isolated use of the word victims. Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecutor’s references to “victims” were not improper.

The judgments are affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The defendant filed a supplemental request to charge prior to the charging conference. The request to charge on mistake of fact, as to counts one and three, was as follows: “If someone took property honestly, although mistakenly believing that he had a right to do so, you cannot find that he had the required intent to prove this element of [l]arceny. Also if someone took property and believed that he had permission to take the property, the wrongful intention of depriving a person of properly cannot be proven.”
      As to count two, the request to charge included the following language: “If the defendant believed that he had the authority of . . . Torsone to authorize the execution of the document — even though he was mistaken on that belief, you cannot find that [the] defendant had the required intent to commit the crime of [f]orgeiy.”

       General Statutes § 53a-6 provides in relevant part: “(a) A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact, unless: (1) Such factual mistake negates the mental state required for the commission of an offense . . . .”

       “Connecticut courts have interpreted the essential elements of larceny as (1) the wrongful taking or carrying away of the personal property of another; (2) the existence of a felonious intent in the taker to deprive the owner of [the property] permanently; and (3) the lack of consent of the owner.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Flowers, 69 Conn. App. 57, 69, 797 A.2d 1122, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 929, 798 A.2d 972 (2002). When the defendant committed the crimes in 2007, a person was guilty of larceny in the first degree when he committed “larceny, as defined in section 53a-119, and ... (3) the property consists of a motor vehicle, the value of which exceeds ten thousand dollars . . . .” General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53a-122.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    RASHEEN GIRAUD v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT
    (AC 31344)
    DiPentima, C. X, and Sheldon and Dupont, Js.

      Argued May 31 —
    officially released August 21, 2012

      Lauren Weisfeld, assistant public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

      Leonard C. Boyle, deputy chief state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state’s attorney, Raheem L. Mullins, assistant state’s attorney, and Dennis O’Connor, former senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Rasheen Giraud, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for a new trial on criminal charges of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, felonymurder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (2), larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123 (a) (1), and kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (B), of which he was found guilty following a jury trial. After he was sentenced on those charges to a total effective sentence of eighty-five years incarceration, his judgment of conviction was affirmed by our Supreme Court on direct appeal. See State v. Giraud, 258 Conn. 631, 632, 783 A.2d 1019 (2001).

In his petition for a new trial, the petitioner claimed that there was newly discovered evidence of posttrial admissions by one of the state’s key witnesses in his criminal trial that showed that that witness had lied in his testimony at trial. The petitioner claimed that the posttrial admissions of the witness so undermined his credibility as to warrant a new trial. Following a hearing, the court issued a memorandum of decision denying the petition for a new trial. The court thereafter granted the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal its decision.

We have examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties and conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial court thoroughly addressed the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Giraud v. State, 52 Conn. Sup. 389, 50 A.3d 985 (2011). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    SPECIALIZED FREIGHT FORWARDERS v. DRAGONE CLASSIC MOTORCARS, INC.
    (AC 33768)
    DiPentima, C. X, and Robinson and Mihalakos, Js.

      Argued April 25 —
    officially released August 28, 2012

      James M. Kearns, for the appellant (defendant).

      Brenden P. Ley don, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

The defendant, Dragone Classic Motorcars, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Specialized Freight Forwarders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, (2) improperly determined that the plaintiff could recover against the defendant for shipping costs despite the fact that the term “freight collect” was used on the bill of lading and (3) improperly determined that the plaintiff has recourse against the defendant for shipping charges incurred under the air waybill when the plaintiff should have recouped those charges from the purchaser. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court found the following facts. The plaintiff is a business based in the Netherlands that forwards freight internationally. The plaintiff was introduced to the defendant through the owner of the plaintiff, David Freriks, when Freriks was employed with another shipper, Mission Freight. During Freriks’ employment with Mission Freight, he observed a series of shipping transactions between Mission Freight and the defendant, all of which involved the defendant paying euros for shipping services. Freriks later started Specialized Freight Forwarders and began shipping vehicles for the defendant, using the same arrangements as were used between Mission Freight and the defendant.

The plaintiff shipped five vehicles from the United States to Europe for the defendant in 2009. The invoices provided to the court demonstrate that a 1929 Alfa Romeo was shipped by air and that a 1915 Metz, a 1932 Chrysler, a 1908 Buick and a 1932 Lincoln were shipped by ocean freight from New York City to the Netherlands. The business relationship between the parties deteriorated after the defendant failed to pay for the shipment of these vehicles. The plaintiff filed this action on July 12, 2010, and filed an amended complaint on August 10, 2010, alleging that it had not been paid for the services rendered to the defendant and that the defendant was unjustly enriched as a result.

A two day bench trial was held on July 14 and July 15, 2011. The court heard testimony from only Freriks and the defendant’s president, Emanuel G. Dragone. At the conclusion of trial, the court issued an oral decision finding in favor of the plaintiff. The court determined that it was understood between the parties that payment was to be made in euros and that the plaintiff was to determine the fees and expenses associated with the shipment of goods and notify the defendant of the itemized value and total amount prior to making actual shipping arrangements. The court determined that this procedure was the “usual and customary way that all shipping arrangements were handled by the parties” and that the plaintiff would advance all sums for the shipment and would be reimbursed for all such advancements by the defendant. The court further determined that despite the defendant’s argument that the buyer of the vehicles was responsible for shipping fees, that was not the arrangement that the parties had used in the past. The court, therefore, awarded the plaintiff €26,560.59, plus prejudgment interest under General Statutes § 37-3a, for a total of €33,138.45, which converted to $46,877.60. The court also ordered legal interest of 8 percent to be paid from the date of the judgment until the unsatisfied amounts have been paid. This appeal followed.

I

The defendant’s first claim on appeal is that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs case because it is an admiralty action over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. “A determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and, therefore, we employ the plenary standard of review and decide whether the court’s conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the facts in the record. . . . [I]t is well established that a reviewing court properly may address [subject matter jurisdiction] claims that neither were raised nor ruled on in the trial court. Indeed, [o]nce the question of lack of [subject matter] jurisdiction of a court is raised, [it] must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented. . . . The court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Warner v. Bicknell, 126 Conn. App. 588, 594, 12 A.3d 1042 (2011).

The defendant argues that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty actions under the constitution of the United States and federal law, and, that therefore the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Section 1333 of title 28 of the United States Code provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. (2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.”

In its brief, the plaintiff cites Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U.S. 556, 74 S. Ct. 298, 98 L. Ed. 290 (1954), in support of its argument that the court had subject matter jurisdiction. We find Madruga is dispositive of the defendant’s claim. In Madruga, the United States Supreme Court stated: “Admiralty’s jurisdiction is ‘exclusive’ only as to those maritime causes of action begun and carried on as proceedings in rem, that is, where a vessel or thing is itself treated as the offender and made the defendant by name or description in order to enforce a lien. ... It is this kind of in rem proceeding which state courts cannot entertain. But the jurisdictional act does leave state courts ‘competent’ to adjudicate maritime causes of action in proceedings ‘in personam, ’ that is, where the defendant is a person, not a ship or some other instrument of navigation.” (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id., 560-61; see In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., 419 F.3d 83, 102 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[T]he jurisdiction of the federal admiralty courts has never been wholly exclusive. State courts, for example, may exercise in personam jurisdiction over litigants to provide remedies to causes of action that are cognizable under both admiralty and state law.” [Emphasis in original.]); Dluhos v. Floating & Abandoned Vessel, 162 F.3d 63, 71 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[i]t is well-established that a claim may be cognizable under both federal admiralty law and state law”). In the present case, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was a ship or other instrument of navigation. The proceeding, therefore, was in personam, and the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiffs claims.

II

The defendant’s second claim on appeal is that the court improperly determined that the plaintiff could recover against the defendant for shipping costs despite the fact that the term “freight collect” was used on the bill of lading. The defendant argues that the use of the term “freight collect” on the bill of lading demonstrated that only the buyer of the goods was to pay for shipping costs, not the seller, and, therefore, it should not be hable for the costs incurred in shipping the vehicles overseas. We disagree.

Whether the use of the term “freight collect” in the bill of lading meant that the buyer and not the seher organizing the shipment of the goods was responsible for shipment costs is a matter of contract interpretation. “The standard of review for the interpretation of a contract is well established. Although ordinarily the question of contract interpretation, being a question of the parties’ intent, is a question of fact . . . [when] there is definitive contract language, the determination of what the parties intended by their . . . commitments is a question of law [over which our review is plenary].” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bristol v. Ocean State Job Lot Stores of Connecticut, Inc., 284 Conn. 1, 7, 931 A.2d 837 (2007).

The defendant contends that the use of the term “freight collect” in the bill of lading demonstrates that it is not responsible for the shipment costs, and rather, that the plaintiff should have recouped those costs from the buyer of the transported goods. One decision of our Supreme Court has commented on the issue of whether the term “freight collect,” in and of itself, demonstrates that the buyer and not the seller who organized shipment of the goods is responsible for freight costs. In New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. v. California Fruit Growers Exchange, 125 Conn. 241, 243, 5 A.2d 353, cert. denied, 308 U.S. 567, 60 S. Ct. 79, 84 L. Ed. 476 (1939), the defendant seller shipped a carload of fruit with the plaintiff carrier from California, consigned to itself at Providence, Rhode Island. After the fruit arrived in Rhode Island, the defendant directed the carrier to deliver the fruit to Shore Brothers, Inc., “ ‘on payment of freight and all other charges.’ ” Id. The carrier delivered the fruit to Shore Brothers, Inc.; however, the carrier did not collect the freight costs. Id. After Shore Brothers, Inc., became insolvent, the carrier sued the defendant to recover the cost of shipping the fruit. Id. hi reaching its conclusion that the defendant was to pay for the shipping costs, our Supreme Court commented: “In New York Central [Railroad] Co. v. Frank H. Buck Co., [2 Cal. 2d 384, 392, 41 P.2d 547 (1935)], upon facts similar in all material respects to those of the present case, the consignor was held liable for freight charges, it being said . . . : The authorities . . . hold without exception, so far as we are advised, that a mere direction by a consignor or consignee liable for the freight that a shipment be carried or diverted freight collect or delivered upon payment of freight, or the like, is insufficient to relieve him of such liability, citing numerous cases, including New York Central [Railroad] Co. v. Warren Ross Lumber Co. [234 N.Y. 261, 137 N.E. 324 (1922)] and other cases hereinafter referred to. The consignor is primarily hable even where the bill of lading contains a provision imposing liability upon the consignee. Louisville & [Nashville Railroad Co.] v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U.S. 59, [44 S. Ct. 441, 68 L. Ed. 900 (1924)].” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. v. California Fruit Growers Exchange, supra, 248.

Other courts have also determined that the use of the term “freight collect” does not necessarily absolve the party ordering the goods to be shipped of liability for payment of shipping costs. The United States Supreme Court in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., supra, 265 U.S. 67, stated: “Ordinarily, the person from whom the goods are received for shipment assumes the obligation to pay the freight charges; and his obligation is ordinarily a primary one. This is true even where the bill of lading contains ... a provision imposing liability upon the consignee. For the shipper is presumably the consignor; the transportation ordered by him is presumably on his own behalf; and a promise by him to pay therefor is inferred (that is, implied in fact), as a promise to pay for goods is implied, when one orders them from a dealer.” See Flota Mer-cante Grancolombiana v. Florida Construction Equipment, Inc., 608 F. Sup. 1515, 1524-25 (E.D. La. 1985) (“There is a rebuttable presumption that the shipper is primarily hable for freight. This presumption may be rebutted by proof, by the bill of lading or other evidence, that the parties intended that the consignee should assume the primary liability and the shipper should assume only a secondary liability, or that the consignee should assume the liability entirely and the shipper should not assume any liability whatsoever for payment of the freight charges. The clause ‘freight collect’, of itself, on the bill of lading is insufficient to rebut the presumption and reheve the shipper of its primary liability to pay the freight.”).

In the present case, the defendant’s sole argument in regard to this issue is that the use of the term “freight collect” on the bill of lading established that the purchasers of the vehicles were responsible for shipping costs, and not the defendant. As the case law outlined previously demonstrates, however, the use of the term “freight collect” on the bill of lading does not necessarily absolve the party ordering the shipment of goods, i.e., the shipper, of its liability to pay the shipping costs. The defendant does not argue that the court erred in concluding that the parties engaged in a course of conduct that involved the plaintiff advancing funds to pay for shipping the defendant’s goods and the defendant, in turn, reimbursing the plaintiff for such costs. Because the defendant does not challenge this portion of the court’s decision, and we conclude that the term “freight collect,” in and of itself, does not absolve the defendant of liability for shipping costs, we conclude that the court did not err in holding the defendant hable for the shipping costs in question.

Ill

The defendant’s last claim on appeal concerns the Alfa Romeo shipped by air transportation. The defendant claims that the court improperly determined that the plaintiff could recover shipping costs incurred under the air waybill from the defendant because the plaintiff was informed that the goods were to be delivered to a specific buyer, who, in turn, should have been responsible for such costs. The defendant argues that although the Alfa Romeo originally was to be shipped to an auction in Paris and then returned to the United States, prior to the vehicle leaving the United States, the defendant sold the car to a buyer in Italy. Therefore, the defendant argues, the shipping costs and the value added tax or VAT should have been paid by the purchaser and not the defendant.

The court’s determination that the defendant did not effectively notify the plaintiff of the alleged change in the shipment of the Alfa Romeo and, therefore, was hable for the shipping costs is a question of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P.C. v. Cadle Co., 278 Conn. 92, 107, 897 A.2d 58 (2006). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. . . . Because it is the trial court’s function to weigh the evidence ... we give great deference to its findings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

In the court’s memorandum of decision, it found the following: “Furthermore, the court concludes that the defendant’s claim that — that he sold the Alfa Romeo to an identified person and notified the plaintiff of same by e-mail before the vehicle was sent to France in accord with the original agreement, rather than to Italy, as unsupported by the . . . evidence. The defendant was given an opportunity to furnish documentation of this information, but failed to offer any evidence on the subject, which fact — adversely affects his credibility with regard to the sale of the vehicle before it was delivered to the auction house. It is also incredible that he would change the deal in the middle of the transaction without first notifying the plaintiff. Consequently, the court finds for the reasons stated herein that the defendant did not effectively notify the plaintiff of any change and is therefore obligated to pay the invoice price, which includes the out-of-pocket advances by the plaintiff as contemplated under their standard business arrangement as I’ve forth set.”

The evidence presented to the court concerning the air waybill and the alleged change in the shipping plans almost entirely conflicted. Dragone testified at trial that the two air waybills submitted as exhibits were different documents because on one copy someone tried to block out his name. The defendant argued that Dragone’s name was blocked out on the air waybill because he no longer was the consignee, and this, therefore, demonstrated that the vehicle had been sold. Freriks, in turn, testified that the first copy of the air waybill was the draft that was sent by e-mail to the plaintiff by the issuing carrier, Cosdel International Transportation, of what the air waybill would look like when the shipment was finalized and that the second copy is the actual air waybill that was sent with the vehicle overseas. The plaintiffs counsel also argued that the name Dragone was not blocked out on the document, rather, the document was a carbon form, and there are certain portions on the document that are grey.

The remainder of the evidence concerning the shipment of the Alfa Romeo involved only Freriks and Dra-gone’s testimony. Freriks testified that he was not aware of any change in shipping arrangements and that the vehicle was shipped to Paris as originally planned. Dragone, in turn, testified that the arrangements were changed after the vehicle was shipped. Due to the conflicting evidence and the fact that only Freriks and Dragone testified, the court was left to gauge the credibility of the two witnesses in order to render its decision. In its oral decision, the court explicitly found that it believed Freriks’ testimony concerning payment over that of Dragone. “[I]n a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony. ... As such, the trial court is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the evidence presented by any witness, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and gauge their credibility.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Miller, 122 Conn. App. 631, 635, 999 A.2d 844 (2010). Based on the conflicting evidence provided by both the plaintiff and the defendant, we cannot conclude that the court’s finding that the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the alleged change in the shipment of the Alfa Romeo was clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       General Statutes § 42a-l-201 (6) defines a bill of lading in relevant part as “a document of title evidencing the receipt of goods for shipment issued by a person engaged in the business of directly or indirectly transporting or forwarding goods. . . .” “A bill of lading operates both as a receipt and as a contract. It is a receipt for the goods shipped and a contract to transport and deliver them.” 13 Am. Jur. 2d 739-40, Carriage of Property § 319 (2009).

       Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) defines an airbill as “[a] document serving for air transportation as a bill of lading does for marine or rail transportation, and includes an air consignment note or air waybill.”

       Dragone was out of the country when the trial took place and testified via a prerecorded videotaped deposition.

       Article three, § 2, of the constitution of the United States provides in relevant part: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority ... to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction . . . .”

       Conflicting testimony was presented before the trial court as to what the term “freight collect” means in the shipping business. Neither party presented expert testimony on the meaning of the term. Freriks testified: “Freight collect means that the steamliner will collect the transport charges for me, for my company. So, I pay the steamliner for the transport charges. So, as soon as the container arrives [at its destination] ... we need to pay . . . the steamliner.” Dragone testified that freight collect means that the “the buyer or the person that’s receiving the container pays the charges.”

       In the present case, a VAT of $6000 was paid by the plaintiff when the Alfa Romeo was shipped overseas. Freriks testified that the VAT is an import duty that in this case was “the value of the car multiplied . . . [by] 6 percent . . . .”

       We note that the defendant also argues that the air waybill submitted as an exhibit was not genuine because it was not Dragone’s signature on the document. Besides its blanket assertion that “ [a]ny reasonable inspection of the exhibit indicates that the signature of Dragone Classic Motorcars is not genuine,” however, the defendant sets forth no further analysis regarding its argument. “[W]e are not required to review claims that are inadequately briefed .... We consistently have held that [ajnalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . . [F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal. . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 634-35, 882 A.2d 98, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924, 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005).

       The court noted that neither party had presented the court with a blank copy of an air waybill.

       As previously noted, the court stated that “[t]he defendant was given an opportunity to furnish documentation of this [concerning the sale of the Alfa Romeo], but failed to offer any evidence on the subject, which fact— adversely affects his credibility with regard to the sale of the vehicle before it was delivered to the auction house.” Furthermore, the court noted that it “believes the plaintiff’s testimony of the conversations with Dragone about the payment of matters rather than the defendant’s.”


author: BEAR, J.

text:
    CLIFFORD YOUNG v. KAROLINA YOUNG
    (AC 33273)
    Bear, Espinosa and Bishop, Js.

      Argued March 12 —
    officially released August 28, 2012

      Robert S. Reger, for the appellant (substitute defendant).

      Francis A. Teodosio, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

BEAR, J.

The defendant, Daniel Young, the administrator of the estate of Karolina Young, appeals from a series of postjudgment orders of the trial court. The defendant claims that the court erred when it denied his “motion for order that [the] parties immediately list for sale the real estate subject of this action” and, instead, ordered the property sold to the plaintiff, Clifford Young, subject to certain offsets. In addition, the defendant claims that the court erred in determining that current appraisals, rather than appraisals from the time of the original partition judgment, should be used to value the subject property. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

This matter previously was before this court. See Young v. Young, 112 Conn. App. 120, 961 A.2d 1029 (2009). Our earlier opinion set forth the following facts and procedural history, which help frame our present analysis. “The plaintiff and [Karolina Young] were married in 1957. At the time [Karolina Young] initiated dissolution proceedings in 1977, the parties owned jointly four properties: two in Shelton, Connecticut, and two in New Mexico. The court’s judgment of dissolution, rendered November 2, 1977, ordered the plaintiff and [Karolina Young] immediately to list for sale the Connecticut properties known as 67 Lynne Terrace, which was the marital residence, and lot 27 Cynthia Lane. Proceeds from the sales were to be divided equally between the parties. . . .

“The obligations of the parties were further set forth in a handwritten agreement, executed by the plaintiff and [Karolina Young] at the time of the dissolution. This agreement, though not disputed by the parties, was not incorporated into the dissolution judgment. ... As to the Lynne Terrace property, the agreement set a sales price of $55,000 and afforded each party a right of first refusal, to be exercised within ten days. The plaintiff was to vacate the property immediately, and [Karolina Young] was to vacate in ten days, at which time, the plaintiff would resume occupancy. The plaintiff was to pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance until the sale. Net proceeds from the sale of the property were to be divided equally between the parties.

“Following entry of the dissolution judgment, the plaintiff eventually resumed residence at the Lynne Terrace property, while [Karolina Young] purchased a condominium. . . . The Lynne Terrace property, however, was never sold, and the plaintiff continued to reside there, while [Karolina Young] eventually moved to Georgia. From 1977 onward, the plaintiff paid the mortgage, taxes, insurance and provided for the general upkeep of the property. [Karolina Young] made no such contributions.

“In August, 2003, the plaintiff contacted [Karolina Young] and informed her that the Lynne Terrace property had been burglarized. Among the items stolen, according to the plaintiff, was a quitclaim deed to the Lynne Terrace property executed by [Karolina Young] in favor of the plaintiff. The quitclaim deed had never been recorded on the Shelton land records. The plaintiff requested that [Karolina Young] send him a new deed to replace the allegedly stolen deed. Upon [Karolina Young’s] refusal, the plaintiff initiated the underlying action.

“By way of his revised complaint, filed November 18, 2005, the plaintiff sought to quiet title to the Lynne Terrace property pursuant to General Statutes § 47-31. The complaint also contained a claim that the plaintiff had acquired title to the property by adverse possession. [Karolina Young] filed an answer, special defense and counterclaim in which she sought a partition of the interests of the parties in the property, a sale of the property and division of the proceeds between the parties, and a monetary award of compensation for the plaintiffs use and occupancy of the property since 1977.

“The matter was tried before the court on November 15 and 16, 2006. . . .

* M= *

“By memorandum of decision filed May 4, 2007, the court ruled in favor of [Karolina Young] on both counts of the complaint. The court concluded that [Karolina Young] had never transferred her interest in the Lynne Terrace property and, therefore, remained the owner of a one-half interest in the property. The court held that the plaintiffs adverse possession claim failed because [Karolina Young] had left the property by agreement of the parties and that the plaintiffs continued occupancy was not hostile to [Karolina Young’s] rights but instead was by her consent. As to [Karolina Young’s] counterclaim, the court held that the plaintiffs expenditures in maintaining the property offset any claim [Karolina Young] could make for use and occupancy. Considering the conflicting interests of the parties, the court ordered the property sold and proceeds divided according to the original dissolution judgment of November 2,1977.” Young v. Young, supra, 112 Conn. App. 121-26.

On May 24, 2007, the plaintiff appealed from the court’s May 4, 2007 judgment. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for articulation, requesting that the court articulate whether he “was to be allowed a credit as ordered in the original judgment of dissolution ... for all mortgage payments made until the marital residence was sold.” On November 27, 2007, the court filed an articulation wherein it responded, “yes,” to that question.

On January 13, 2009, this court affirmed the trial court’s May, 2007 judgment, concluding that the court properly determined that Karolina Young had never quitclaimed her interest in the Lynne Terrace property to the plaintiff; Young v. Young, supra, 112 Conn. App. 128; properly declined to render judgment quieting title to that property in the plaintiffs name; id., 129; and correctly held that the plaintiff had not established a claim to title in that property by adverse possession. Id., 131.

On January 22, 2009, the defendant filed a motion for order requiring that the parties list the Lynne Terrace property for immediate sale, and, subsequently, the plaintiff filed an objection thereto. In addition, on January 29, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion for Reconsideration and Articulation of Order to Sell.” In that motion, the plaintiff requested that the court “further articulate its [2007 judgment].” Noting the expenses associated with a sale, the plaintiff requested that the court “articulate as to whether when it ordered the house sold and the proceeds divided in accordance with the original dissolution judgment, the trial court opined that the plaintiff be or not be entitled to buy the house.”

The plaintiff also filed a “Motion for Articulation Re: Taxes,” noting that the court “previously held that the plaintiff was to be allowed a credit for mortgage payments made” and seemingly differentiating “mortgage payments from expenses for maintenance.” The motion requested that the court “articulate whether it intended a similar offset for taxes paid.”

On February 17, 2009, the court, Hon. George W. Ripley II, judge trial referee, heard argument on a number of the aforementioned postjudgment motions, including the defendant’s motion for an order of sale, the plaintiff’s objection thereto and the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and articulation of the order of sale. At that hearing, the plaintiffs counsel requested that the court allow his client to purchase the defendant’s one-half interest in the property. The defendant responded that such request was not “unreasonable” and stated, “[i]f there’s an appraisal, and it’s done very quickly on a deadline, and we can agree to an appraiser, we’d have to talk about that and get an appraisal, and have him have his funding in place by a deadline, I guess I wouldn’t really object to that. He has lived there.” The parties then agreed to hire an appraiser and the court suggested that “this whole matter ... be continued for a sufficient period of time for the appraiser to make his — get to his valuation, and then try to come back into court and we’ll try to work out a distribution of the proceeds.” After considering an unrelated motion, the court granted the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and articulation of the order to sell and sustained his objection to the defendant’s motion for order of immediate sale. Prior to adjourning the hearing, however, the defendant sought to clarify the extent of the court’s orders.

The following colloquy took place:

“[The Defendant’s Counsel]: May I just, if Your Honor would allow me to clarify for a moment something? For example, the objection for order for sale of premises, which you sustained, however, the objection itself reads, it reads in part—

* * *

“[The Defendant’s Counsel]: If you look at the second — it’s a one paragraph objection, and if you look at the second part of the paragraph, it includes language that would allow offsets as provided in the original judgment. I just don’t want this to become written in concrete later on. It’s my understanding that the distribution of funds is completely unaffected by this order right now.

“The Court: The court is simply ordering the sale of — the appraisal of the property, a determination of value, and an opportunity for the plaintiff to be able to purchase the property. That’s all the court is ordering.

“[The Defendant’s Counsel]: Thank you.

“[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: I agree, Your Honor. I’m not in any way implying that the court has made any other decision at this point.”

Due to issues with arranging an appraisal, the matter did not come before the court again until 2011. Karolina Young died in November, 2010. Additionally, Judge Ripley retired from the bench.

On February 14, 2011, a hearing was held before the court, Hiller, J. Throughout the hearing, the parties argued about whether and to what extent the plaintiff should be entitled to an offset against the value of the Lynne Terrace property for mortgage, insurance and tax payments. The defendant argued that the property should be sold pursuant to General Statutes § 52-500 and that any offsets or credits should be determined after the sale. The defendant further contended that, pursuant to Judge Ripley’s May, 2007 decision, any claim by the plaintiff for offsets related to upkeep of the Lynne Terrace property, including mortgage, tax and insurance payments, was offset by the defendant’s countervailing claim for reasonable use and occupancy of the premises. The plaintiff argued that the court’s decision at the February, 2009 hearing already determined that the Lynne Terrace property should be sold to the plaintiff and that its articulation of its May, 2007 decision clarified his entitlement to an offset for mortgage payments. The plaintiff further requested that the court determine whether he also would be entitled to offsets for payments of taxes and insurance on the Lynne Terrace property, which he claimed were requested in his motions for reconsideration and articulation, but were not resolved at the February, 2009 hearing.

In response, the court issued the following orders: “[The] court believes that from prior decisions regarding [the plaintiffs motion for articulation of the May, 2007 decision] where the answer for articulation to question number one [asking whether the plaintiff was entitled to a credit for mortgage payments] was yes, [the] plaintiff is to be given a credit for insurance and taxes.” The court did not enter any additional orders at this time.

Also at the February, 2011 hearing, the parties presented the court with varying appraisals of the Lynne Terrace property. The parties agreed, on the record, to a value of the Lynne Terrace property of $250,000.

On March 21, 2011, the court, Hiller, J., held yet another hearing in the present matter. At this hearing, the defendant requested that the court enter an order on his original January, 2009 motion for order for immediate sale of the Lynne Terrace property, listing the property for sale. The defendant contended that this was necessary because the February, 2009 order sustaining the plaintiffs objection to the motion for order was “temporary,” contemplating that the parties would return to the court for further proceedings after an appraisal of the Lynne Terrace property was made. The court entered the following order on the defendant’s motion: “[The] property will be sold to [the] plaintiff for [a] price of $125,000 less offsets for mortgage, taxes and insurance. That sale will be effectuated within 30 days.” This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendant claims, specifically, that the court erred (1) “when it denied the defendant’s motion for order to list the property for sale and ordered the property to be sold to the plaintiff,” (2) “in granting the plaintiffs motion for articulation re: taxes,” (3) “in granting the plaintiffs [motion] for reconsideration and articulation of order to sell,” (4) “in ordering an offset for insurance,” (5) “in its interpretation of Judge Ripley’s articulation as foreclosing [the] defendant’s entitlement to a set off of one-half the reasonable use and occupancy against [the] plaintiffs claims for credit for mortgage payments” and (6) when, “in resorting to the use of appraisals . . . using a current appraisal rather than an appraisal of the real estate as of the date of judgment.” Excepting the issue concerning appraisals, the defendant’s various claims can be distilled into a single overarching claim that the court, throughout the postjudgment proceedings, improperly interpreted the meaning and effect of the May, 2007judgment, the articulation of that judgment and this court’s affirmance of that judgment.

Accordingly, we will first consider those portions of the court’s 2009 and 2011 orders requiring sale of the Lynne Terrace property to the plaintiff subject to offsets for mortgage, tax and insurance payments. We next will consider whether the court properly ordered use of a current appraisal in valuing the Lynne Terrace property.

I

The defendant argues that the court’s May, 2007judg-ment found for the defendant on the complaint and ordered, pursuant to the defendant’s counterclaim, a partition of the parties’ interests in the Lynne Terrace property and a sale pursuant to § 52-600. The defendant contends that the May, 2007 judgment was affirmed by this court on appeal, and, thus, it is the law of the case. Therefore, the defendant argues, the court’s March, 2011 order denying his motion for order that the parties immediately list the Lynne Terrace property for sale and that the property be sold to the plaintiff was erroneous, because it contradicted the court’s May, 2007judgment.

The plaintiff contends that the May, 2007 decision directed that the property be sold in accordance with the terms of the dissolution judgment. Thus, the plaintiff argues that the effect of the February and March, 2011 orders, providing for sale of the Lynne Terrace property to the plaintiff with offsets for mortgage, tax and insurance payments, merely effectuated the terms of the 1977 dissolution judgment.

Our Supreme Court “has recognized that it is within the equitable powers of the trial court to fashion whatever orders [are] required to protect the integrity of [its original] judgment. . . . Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc., 275 Conn. 420, 433, 881 A.2d 230 (2005); see also Commissioner of Health Services v. Youth Challenge of Greater Hartford, Inc., 219 Conn. 657, 670, 594 A.2d 958 (1991) ([c]ourts have in general the power to fashion a remedy appropriate to the vindication of a prior . . . judgment).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut v. Gauss, 302 Conn. 408, 457, 28 A.3d 302 (2011). Moreover, “[t]he trial court has jurisdiction to clarify an ambiguous judgment at any time.” Sosin v. Sosin, 300 Conn. 205, 218, 14 A.3d 307 (2011).

“Because [t]he construction of [an order or] judgment is a question of law for the court . . . our review . . . is plenary. As a general rule, [orders and] judgments are to be construed in the same fashion as other written instruments. . . . The determinative factor is the intention of the court as gathered from all parts of the [order or] judgment. . . . The interpretation of [an order or] judgment may involve the circumstances surrounding [its] making. . . . Effect must be given to that which is clearly implied as well as to that which is expressed. . . . The [order or] judgment should admit of a consistent construction as a whole. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Santoro v. Santoro, 132 Conn. App. 41, 46, 31 A.3d 62 (2011).

The confusion in the present matter results, in part, from the interplay of two separate judgments: the court’s 1977 judgment of dissolution and the court’s May, 2007 judgment in the present quiet title matter. The 1977 judgment of dissolution provides in relevant part: “[T]he parties shall immediately list the real estate known as 67 Lynne Terrace, Shelton . . . for sale. . . . The net proceeds of the sale of 67 Lynne Terrace, Shelton, shall be divided equally between the parties after first reimbursing the defendant for payments made towards mortgage and taxes between this date and the date of the closing.” The 1977 handwritten agreement between the parties, which was not incorporated into the judgment of dissolution, provides in relevant part: “The parties agree to list the family residence at Lynne Terrace to obtain a Fair Market Value of $55,000.00. Each party will have a right of first refusal to be exercised within 10 days. The parties will use [Attorney] Richard Lynch. The defendant will vacate the property tonight. The plaintiff shall vacate the property within 10 days at which time the defendant shall resume occupancy. Defendant husband shall advance mortgage payments including taxes and insurance which shall be credited as an expense of sale. After the mortgage credit, the payment of expenses of sale, the net proceeds shall be divided equally. Rental proceeds shall be credited equally.”

Nothing in the 1977 dissolution or the handwritten agreement between the parties explicitly provides that the property must be sold directly to the plaintiff. Rather, the handwritten agreement provides that either party is entitled to a right of first refusal. Moreover, both the dissolution judgment and the handwritten agreement provide that the property is to be Usted for sale.

Turning to the May, 2007 quiet title judgment, the court ordered the parties “to forthwith list the property for sale and to divide the proceeds as specified in the [1977 dissolution] judgment entered by the court,” in other words, to list the property for public sale. Neither judgment contains any order for a private sale of the Lynne Terrace property to the plaintiff, although the court could have done so pursuant to § 52-500. See Giulietti v. Giulietti, 65 Conn. App. 813, 852-53, 784 A.2d 905, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 946, 947, 788 A.2d 95, 96, 97 (2001).

Accordingly, that portion of the court’s March, 2011 order providing for immediate sale of the Lynne Terrace property to the plaintiff was improper, as it contravened the unambiguous terms of the May, 2007 judgment and, in addition, modified the terms of the 1977 judgment of dissolution. See Sosin v. Sosin, supra, 300 Conn. 218 (“[t]he trial court has no jurisdiction [however] to open a judgment and [to] affect the property assignment [in a marital dissolution action] except within four months after the original judgment” [internal quotation marks omitted]); see also General Statutes § 52-212a. Nothing in the 1977 judgment of dissolution or the May, 2007 judgment requires that the property be sold directly to the plaintiff for a sum certain. On the contrary, both the May, 2007judgment and the 1977 judgment of dissolution provide that the property is to be listed for public sale.

Aside from the order of sale to the plaintiff, the defendant also claims that the court erred when it granted the plaintiff an offset for tax, insurance and mortgage payments made on the Lynne Terrace property. Specifically, the defendant contends that the May, 2007 judgment provided that the plaintiffs claim for an offset of mortgage, tax and insurance payments was, itself, offset by the defendant’s countervailing claim for use and occupancy. The defendant further claims that the court improperly interpreted Judge Ripley’s 2007 articulation “as foreclosing [the] defendant’s entitlement to a setoff of one-half the reasonable use and occupancy against [the] plaintiffs claims for credit for mortgage payments.”

The plaintiff contends that the court's postjudgment orders providing offsets for mortgage, tax and insurance payments effectuated the terms of the 1977 dissolution and, therefore, were proper. That is, the plaintiff argues that the 1977 dissolution judgment explicitly provided for him to be paid offsets for his mortgage, tax and insurance payments from the gross proceeds of the sale prior to the division of the net proceeds between him and the defendant. The plaintiff contends that when the court stated, in its May, 2007 judgment, that the defendant’s entitlement to use and occupancy payments was to be offset by the plaintiffs expenditures to maintain the Lynne Terrace property, the court was referring only to costs related to repairs and maintenance — such as the resurfacing of a driveway or the installation of a septic tank — not to mortgage, tax and insurance payments for which he claimed a credit. According to the plaintiffs reading of the May, 2007 judgment, which he claims is supported by the court's articulation stating that he is entitled to a credit for mortgage payments, the court’s statement that the proceeds of sale shall be divided pursuant to the terms of the 1977 dissolution judgment permits the plaintiff to deduct offsets for mortgage, tax and insurance payments from the gross proceeds of sale prior to the division of the net proceeds. We disagree with the plaintiffs reading of the court’s May, 2007 judgment.

With regard to offsets, the May, 2007 judgment provides in relevant part: “As to the defendant’s claim for compensation for the plaintiffs use and occupancy, the plaintiff testified that he has met all the expenses for the upkeep of the premises including any mortgage payments, household repairs and grounds maintenance and taxes. It appears to the court without resorting to an accounting that any claim by the defendant for use and occupancy is offset by the evidence of the plaintiffs expenditures to maintain the property.”

This language clearly implies that the court intended that the plaintiffs use and occupancy obligation owed to the defendant with regard to the Lynne Terrace property be offset against the moneys he paid for expenses related to the property. See Ottiano v. Shetucket Plumbing Supply Co., 61 Conn. App. 648, 652, 767 A.2d 128 (2001) (when interpreting judgment, effect must be given to that which is implied as well as that which is expressed). Moreover, in ordering a public sale pursuant to § 52-500, it is apparent that the court considered the plaintiffs various expenditures related to the “upkeep” of the Lynne Terrace property, including “any mortgage payments, household repairs and grounds maintenance and taxes.” We are not persuaded by the plaintiffs argument that the court’s statement “that any claim by the defendant for use and occupancy is offset by the evidence of the plaintiffs expenditures to maintain the property” implies that the court was balancing only the plaintiffs expenditures related to maintenance, in a strict rather than general sense of the term, thus excluding mortgage, tax and insurance payments, against the defendant’s entitlement to use and occupancy. Rather, taken in context, we determine that the court’s reference to “expenditures to maintain the property,” properly includes expenditures for the “upkeep” of the Lynne Terrace property, including mortgage payments, taxes and insurance. We arrive at this conclusion noting that, under common usage, the terms “maintenance” and “upkeep” are synonymous.

“[A] partition action requires that the court balance the equities between the parties.” Rissolo v. Betts Island Oyster Farms, LLC, 117 Conn. App. 344, 353, 979 A.2d 534 (2009). Based on our review of the May, 2007 judgment, it is apparent that the court balanced the plaintiffs out-of-pocket expenditures for maintenance, or upkeep, of the entire Lynne Terrace property against the defendant’s countervailing interest in reasonable use and occupancy payments. The end result of that equitable balancing was that the competing financial interests of the parties canceled one another out, and the court thus ordered that the net proceeds of the public sale of the real property be divided equally, in accordance with the division provided in the 1977judg-ment of dissolution. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order requiring a private sale of the defendant’s interest in the real property to the plaintiff.

This does not end our inquiry, however, because the defendant contests not only the court’s March, 2011 order, but also its February, 2011 and March, 2009 orders. We note that the court’s orders clarifying that the plaintiff is entitled to claim offsets for insurance and tax payments were not improper. The 1977 dissolution judgment provides that the plaintiff shall be reimbursed for mortgage and tax payments. Furthermore, the handwritten agreement between the parties provides that mortgage, tax and insurance payments shall be credited as an expense of sale. We conclude that, notwithstanding such entitlement, the express terms of the May, 2007 judgment provide that the plaintiffs entitlement to such credit is equitably offset against the defendant’s entitlement to payment for use and occupancy. Accordingly, although the plaintiff is entitled to an offset under the terms of the 1977 judgment of dissolution, he is unable to claim such an offset as a deduction against the sale proceeds of the Lynne Terrace property because the court’s May, 2007 judgment determined that such entitlement is itself offset by the defendant’s countervailing claim for use and occupancy. Plainly stated, we construe the May, 2007 judgment as providing that the plaintiffs monetary claims relating to the property are cancelled out by the defendant’s financial claims relating to the property, leaving both parties to divide equally the net proceeds of sale of the Lynne Terrace property without any further adjustments or offsets for those monetary claims.

II

The defendant also claims that the court improperly determined that current appraisals, rather than appraisals from the time of the May, 2007 judgment ordering partition and sale, should be used to value the Lynne Terrace property. We determine that the defendant has waived this claim.

Both parties agreed at the February, 2011 hearing in this matter that $250,000 was the value to be used for the Lynne Terrace property. This figure split the difference between the appraisal provided by the plaintiff and the 2010 appraisal provided by the defendant. By agreeing to the $250,000 valuation on the record, the defendant has waived his claim that an appraisal as of the date of the May, 2007 judgment should be used to value the Lynne Terrace property. See Bohonnon Law Firm, LLC v. Baxter, 131 Conn. App. 371, 387, 27 A.3d 384 (“[w]hen a party consents to or expresses satisfaction with an issue at trial, claims arising from that issue are deemed waived and may not be reviewed on appeal” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 303 Conn. 902, 31 A.3d 1177 (2011).

In summary, the court’s order providing for the private sale of the defendant’s share of the Lynne Terrace property to the plaintiff for $125,000 less offsets for mortgage, tax and insurance payments is reversed. The orders clarifying the plaintiffs entitlement to offsets for mortgage, tax and insurance payments on the Lynne Terrace property are affirmed, but such entitlement is itself offset by the defendant’s countervailing claim for use and occupancy. The matter is remanded to the trial court with direction to order an immediate listing of the Lynne Terrace property for public sale at the agreed value of $250,000 and for further proceedings as necessary in accordance with this opinion to effectuate the partition of such property by public sale, the payment of any and all valid encumbrances thereon and valid expenses relating to such sale, and the equal division and distribution of the net proceeds therefrom.

The judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the preceding paragraph.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       After the named defendant in this action, Karolina Young, died on November 2, 2010, the administrator of her estate, Daniel Young, was substituted as the defendant in this matter by the trial court, HiUer, J., on February 14, 2011. We refer to Daniel Young, in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of Karolina Young, as the defendant and to Karolina Young by name.

       The motion requested “an appropriate order requiring the parties to list the property for sale, and/or to cooperate in listing the property for sale. [The] [defendant also seeks a deadline by which the property must be listed.”

       The objection provided: “The plaintiff . . . objects to any order to sell [the Lynne Terrace property] unless the order would first include an opportunity for the plaintiff to purchase the premises subject to offsets as provided in the original judgment in [Young v. Young, Superior Court, Docket No. FA-77-0166122 (November 2, 1977)] and alluded to by the trial court (Hon. George W. Ripley II, judge trial referee) in its judgment of May 4, 2007, and its [articulation] dated November 27, 2007.”

       During that time the parties attempted to get a joint appraisal, but were hampered in their efforts by the conduct of the appraiser they had retained.

       See footnote 1 of this opinion.

       General Statutes § 52-500 provides: “(a) Any court of equitable jurisdiction may, upon the complaint of any person interested, order the sale of any property, real or personal, owned by two or more persons, when, in the opinion of the court, a sale will better promote the interests of the owners. If the court determines that one or more of the persons owning such real or personal property have only a minimal interest in such property and a sale would not promote the interests of the owners, the court may order such equitable distribution of such property, with payment of just compensation to the owners of such minimal interest, as will better promote the interests of the owners.
      “(b) The provisions of this section shall extend to and include land owned by two or more persons, when the whole or a part of the land is vested in any person for life with remainder to his heirs, general or special, or, on failure of the heirs, to any other person, whether the land, or any part thereof, is held in trust or otherwise. A conveyance made pursuant to a decree ordering a sale of the land shall vest the title in the purchaser thereof, and shall bind the person entitled to the life estate and his legal heirs and any other person having a remainder interest in the lands. The court issuing the decree shall make such order in relation to the investment of the proceeds of the sale as it deems necessary for the security of all persons having any interest in such land.”

       The defendant argues that the plaintiffs motions for articulation are untimely under Practice Book § 66-5. Although the plaintiff titled a number of his postjudgment motions as motions to “articulate,” it is clear from the record that the plaintiffs motions appropriately are construed as motions to clarify the court’s prior judgments and were thus timely filed. See, e.g., Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597, 604-605, 974 A.2d 641 (2009) (“[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. . . . There is no time restriction imposed on the filing of a motion for clarification.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]).

       Although not incorporated in the judgment of dissolution, we refer to the parties’ handwritten agreement in our interpretation of that judgment. See, e.g., Nelson v. Nelson, 13 Conn. App. 355, 358-59, 536 A.2d 985 (1988). As our previous opinion in this matter notes, the parties do not dispute the existence or terms of their agreement. Young v. Young, supra, 112 Conn. App. 122.

       The provision of a right of first refusal in the handwritten agreement is instructive, in that it evinced the intent of the parties that the Lynne Terrace properly first was to be offered for sale to third parties. See, e.g., Briggs v. Sylvestri, 49 Conn. App. 297, 303-304, 714 A.2d 56 (1998) (“[A] right of first refusal . . . [is] conditioned on the occurrence of two events: [the property owner’s] desire to sell the property, and [his] receipt of an acceptable offer from a bona fide purchaser. . . . This right merely requires the property owner, before it [sells] the [property] to some third party, to offer it to [the holder of the right] on the same terms it [is] willing to accept from the third party.” [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]).

       Upkeep is defined as “the act of maintaining in good condition . . . Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002). Maintenance is defined as “the labor of keeping something (as buildings or equipment) in a state of repair or efficiency . . . .” Id.

       Specifically, the May, 2007judgment provides that “the conflicting interests of the parties would be best served by a sale of the premises with the net proceeds being divided equally pursuant to the judgment of the court as entered on November 2, 1977.” (Emphasis added.)

       Although credits for insurance payments are not provided for in the 1977 dissolution judgment, we again look to the terms of the handwritten agreement, which was considered by the trial court without objection, in conjunction with the May, 2007 judgment. We recognize that an agreement between the parties not accepted and approved by the court generally is ineffective to modify a dissolution judgment. See, e.g., Albrecht v. Albrecht, 19 Conn. App. 146, 151, 562 A.2d 528, cert. denied, 212 Conn. 813, 565 A.2d 534 (1989). Here, however, we do not analyze the terms of the handwritten agreement as a means of modifying the dissolution judgment. Rather, we look at the terms of that agreement to clarify the interests of the parties in the Lynne Terrace property equitably balanced by the court in fashioning its May, 2007 judgment in this quiet title action.

       The defendant has suggested, both in his appellate brief and at oral argument, that this matter be remanded to the trial court for a sale pursuant to § 52-500 and that, thereafter, the court “hold a hearing to determine the amount of credit [to] be given to the parties respectively . As noted, under our interpretation of the court’s May, 2007 judgment, we determine that the court engaged in an equitable balancing of the parties’ respective monetary claims relating to the property, without resorting to an accounting. The court’s May, 2007 judgment ordered a sale pursuant to § 52-500. We take no position on the propriety of the court’s decision to order a sale of the Lynne Terrace property without resorting to an accounting because neither party properly has raised that issue on appeal.

       There were three appraisals before the court: the defendant’s appraisal assigning a value to the property as of the date of the 2007 judgment, the defendant’s appraisal assigning avalué to the property as of the date of her 2010 appraisal and the plaintiffs appraisal assigning a value to the property as of the date of his 2010 appraisal. Once the court determined that the 2010 appraised values of the property would be considered, counsel for both parties agreed to the figure of $250,000, which was the midpoint between each party’s 2010 appraised value.