author: Berdon, J.

text:
    Diane Passamano v. Salvatore J. Passamano
    (14622)
    Peters, C. J., Borden, Berdon, Katz and Palmer, Js.
    Argued September 28—
    decision released December 7, 1993

      Lynda B. Munro, with whom was Lisa A. Faccadio, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Charles J. Irving, for the appellee (defendant).
   Berdon, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether, under the circumstances of this case, an order that the former spouse pay mortgage and real estate taxes on the marital home, which home is to be sold when the youngest child reaches eighteen and the proceeds divided between the parties, constitutes a judicially modifiable order of alimony rather than an assignment of property. We determine that it does not.

In 1984, the trial court, Budney, J., dissolved the seventeen year marriage of the plaintiff, Diane Passamano, and the defendant, Salvatore Passamano. At the time of the dissolution there were two children, ages eleven and thirteen years, issue of the marriage. The parties jointly owned the marital home, subject to a first mortgage that secured a note upon which they were jointly liable. The parties stipulated to the terms of the dissolution, and the terms were incorporated into the decree. The decree included provisions for child custody, visitation and support, and assignment of property. The decree also awarded the plaintiff possession of the home until the youngest child reached the age of eighteen, at which time the home was to be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties. The defendant was required to pay monthly mortgage installments and real estate taxes on the home during this period of time. The plaintiff was required to maintain and pay for homeowner’s insurance. The decree specifically provided that any amount of the monthly mortgage installments and real estate taxes that the defendant failed to pay would be deducted from the defendant’s share of the proceeds from the sale of the house. Finally, the parties were prohibited from encumbering the property further, absent court approval. The decree contained no provision for alimony, as the plaintiff had expressly waived alimony on the record.

On December 7,1990, the youngest child of the parties reached the age of eighteen. For reasons undisclosed in the record, however, the plaintiff and the defendant did not undertake to sell the home at that time. The plaintiff continued to live in the home, and to fulfill her responsibilities under the decree. The defendant continued to make mortgage and tax payments.

On July 30, 1991, the defendant filed a “motion to re-open and modify judgment,” claiming a “substantial change of circumstances” in that the children had reached the age of majority. The defendant sought an order that the trial court open the decree and terminate his obligation to pay the mortgage installments and real estate taxes.

The defendant argued before the trial court, Arena, J., that the obligation to pay the mortgage and taxes was an order of child support pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-84 and therefore, the children having reached age eighteen, the obligation was terminated.* He did not raise before the trial court, or even suggest, that this obligation constituted alimony. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the obligation to pay the mortgage and taxes constituted part of the assignment of marital property pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-81, and was therefore not modifiable.

The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the trial court incorrectly characterized the obligation to pay the monthly mortgage installments and taxes as an assignment of marital property because this obligation constituted an order of periodic alimony pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-82.* *** Passamano v. Passamano, 28 Conn. App. 854, 612 A.2d 141 (1992). We granted the plaintiffs petition for certification on the following issue: “Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court improperly conclude that the order that the defendant pay the mortgage and taxes on the marital home was modifiable as an order of alimony?” Passamano v. Passamano, 224 Conn. 904, 615 A.2d 1047 (1992).

We agree with the plaintiff that the Appellate Court was not correct in holding that the order obligating the defendant to make mortgage and tax payments on the marital home constituted alimony. The plaintiff clearly and unequivocally waived any claim to alimony. At the time that it entered the decree, the trial court canvassed the plaintiff, explaining that her waiver of alimony was permanent and binding. After a colloquy between the trial court and the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff indicated that she was not seeking alimony, the trial court stated the following: “[T]his is an important day for you, which I think you realize. If the court doesn’t order alimony today, which is support for you in effect . . . you will never be able to obtain any alimony in the future. In effect, when you waive alimony today that’s it. You will never be able to get alimony from this court or any court. And that is support for yourself. Do you understand that?” The plaintiff answered “yes” on the record. The trial court accepted her express waiver. In determining the nature of the award, the characterization made by the trial court is controlling. Dubicki v. Dubicki, 186 Conn. 709, 715, 443 A.2d 1268 (1982). In view of the plaintiff’s unmistakable waiver of her right to alimony and the absence of an alimony award in the stipulation or decree, the Appellate Court was mistaken in holding that the mortgage and real estate tax payments constituted an award of alimony.

The question that remains is whether the trial court correctly characterized the obligation to make these payments as a nonmodifiable assignment of property, rather than an order of child support. Although the decree does not expressly label the obligation at issue, an analysis of the decree clearly indicates that the order to pay the mortgage installments and taxes was intended by the trial court to constitute a division of property pursuant to § 46b-81. When the decree is silent as to the characterization of an order, an analysis of the structure of the dissolution decree is highly instructive; Blake v. Blake, 211 Conn. 485, 497, 560 A.2d 396 (1989); and an ambiguous order should be examined in the context of the entire decree. Viglione v. Viglione, 171 Conn. 213, 216, 368 A.2d 202 (1976). These rules must be viewed against the well recognized principle that because every family situation is unique, the trial court drafting a dissolution decree has wide discretion to make suitable orders to fit the circumstances. Lane v. Lane, 187 Conn. 144, 147, 444 A.2d 1377 (1982); Pasquariello v. Pasquariello, 168 Conn. 579, 583, 362 A.2d 835 (1975).

The organization of the decree in this matter strongly supports the conclusion that the trial court intended the mortgage and tax payments to be part of the assignment of the property. After the judgment file provides for child support, it further, in a separate paragraph, orders the sale of the marital home and the division of the proceeds between the parties when the youngest child reaches eighteen. The placement of the order to make mortgage and tax payments in the same paragraph as the order to sell the marital home and divide the proceeds is strong evidence that these obligations were intended to constitute an assignment of property. Cf. Viglione v. Viglione, supra, 217 (“[i]f the state referee intended that the duty to pay [real estate] taxes be treated as child support, it is most unlikely that he would have imposed that obligation by the use of the same clause which sets forth an obligation which is clearly alimony without specifically designating the tax payments as being for the support of the children”). Further evidence that the order to pay mortgage installments and taxes is an assignment of property is found in the provision of the decree that provides that if the defendant fails to pay them, “they shall be deducted from his share of the equity upon sale of the premises to a third party or to the wife.”

The defendant argues, however, that the order to pay future monthly mortgage installments and taxes is an order to pay debts that will accrue after the date of the dissolution decree, and as such is contrary to our well established case law defining the scope of assignable property under § 46b-81. Eslami v. Eslami, 218 Conn. 801, 806-808, 591 A.2d 411 (1991); Rubin v. Rubin, 204 Conn. 224, 228-32, 527 A.2d 1184 (1987). Rubin and its progeny do not involve, however, the assignment of a present property interest and how the assignment can be structured. In Rubin, we held that § 46b-81 does not authorize the distribution of a contingent one-third share of any assets that the husband might acquire through a future inheritance upon his mother’s death. Rubin stands for the proposition that the mere possibility of a future interest is not assignable as a property interest under § 46b-81. The present case, however, involves an obligation of a different nature than the mere expectation of an inheritance at issue in Rubin.

The order to make mortgage and tax payments in the present case, together with the order that the plaintiff maintain and pay for homeowner’s insurance, constitute a structure for the division of an asset of the parties, the marital home. The trial court’s interpretation of the dissolution decree in the present case was consistent with several basic principles. First, § 46b-81 grants jurisdiction to order one party to assume the joint liabilities of the parties. Beede v. Beede, 186 Conn. 191, 196-97, 440 A.2d 283 (1982); Clement v. Clement, 27 Conn. App. 364, 369, 606 A.2d 36 (1992) (upholding the assignment of a mortgage liability to one party). Second, an assignment of property may properly be ordered in installments rather than in a lump sum transfer. Siracusa v. Siracusa, 30 Conn. App. 560, 564, 621 A.2d 309 (1993).

Most importantly, in assigning an asset of the parties pursuant to § 46b-81, the court has jurisdiction to assign possession of the asset until the occurrence of a future event, such as the children reaching their majority, even though the court does not retain jurisdiction to modify the assignment of the property subsequent to the decree. Croke v. Croke, 4 Conn. App. 663, 496 A.2d 235 (1985) (trial court had jurisdiction to assign to a former spouse, as part of the division of the property under § 46b-81, the right to have possession of the house until the youngest child reached the age of eighteen). It stands to reason that if the trial court, when making a division of property under § 46b-81, can assign a party the exclusive possession of the marital home for a period of years followed by a sale and division of the equity, it can also order one of the parties, in accordance with the parties’ agreement, to pay the monthly mortgage payments and the real estate taxes during that period of time as part of the division of the real property. See Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 332, 464 A.2d 780 (1983); 7 A. Rutkin, E. Effron & K. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series: Family Law and Practice (1991) § 28.8. “ ‘The power to act equitably is the keystone to the court’s ability to fashion relief in the infinite variety of circumstances which arise out of the dissolution of a marriage. Without this wide discretion and broad equitable power, the courts in some cases might be unable fairly to resolve the parties’ dispute, i.e., where the sole asset of the parties is their residence to which both have contributed. . . .’ ” Sunbury v. Sunbury, 210 Conn. 170, 174, 553 A.2d 612 (1989).

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       General Statutes § 46b-84 provides in relevant part: “(a) Upon or subsequent to the annulment or dissolution of any marriage or the entry of a decree of legal separation or divorce, the parents of a minor child of the marriage, shall maintain the child according to their respective abilities, if the child is in need of maintenance.
      “(b) In determining whether a child is in need of maintenance and, if in need, the respective abilities of the parents to provide such maintenance and the amount thereof, the court shall consider the age, health, station, occupation, earning capacity, amount and sources of income, estate, vocational skills and employability of each of the parents, and the age, health, station, occupation, educational status and expectation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of the child.”

       A child support order may not extend beyond the child’s age of majority unless the parties expressly agree to the contrary. General Statutes § 46b-66; Gallo v. Gallo, 184 Conn. 36, 46, 440 A.2d 782 (1981).

       General Statutes § 46b-81 provides: “(a) At the time of entering a decree annulling or dissolving a marriage or for legal separation pursuant to a complaint under section 46b-45, the superior court may assign to either the husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other. The court may pass title to real property to either party or to a third person or may order the sale of such real property, without any act by either the husband or the wife, when in the judgment of the court it is the proper mode to carry the decree into effect.
      “(b) A conveyance made pursuant to the decree shall vest title in the purchaser, and shall bind all persons entitled to life estates and remainder interests in the same manner as a sale ordered by the court pursuant to the provisions of section 52-500. When the decree is recorded on the land records in the town where the real property is situated, it shall effect the transfer of the title of such real property as if it were a deed of the party or parties.
      “(c) In fixing the nature and value of the property, if any, to be assigned, the court, after hearing the witnesses, if any, of each party, except as provided in subsection (a) of section 46b-51, shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the annulment, dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income. The court shall also consider the contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their respective estates.”

       Courts have no inherent power to transfer property from one spouse to another; instead, that power must rest upon an enabling statute. Rubin
        v. Rubin, 204 Conn. 224, 228-29, 527 A.2d 1184 (1987). Under General Statutes § 46b-81 (a), the statute that enables the trial court to transfer property in a marital dissolution action, the court does not retain continuing jurisdiction over any portion of the judgment that constitutes an assignment of property. Bunche v. Bunche, 180 Conn. 285, 289, 429 A.2d 874 (1980). Therefore, a property division order generally cannot be modified by the trial court after the dissolution decree is entered, subject only to being opened within four months from the date the judgment is rendered under General Statutes § 52-212a. The trial court does retain continuing jurisdiction to modify or terminate alimony and child support orders, unless the orders are based on a stipulated agreement that expressly bars future modification. General Statutes § 46b-86; Barnard v. Barnard, 214 Conn. 99, 114, 570 A.2d 690 (1990).

       General Statutes § 46b-82 provides: “At the time of entering the decree, the superior court may order either of the parties to pay alimony to the other, in addition to or in lieu of an award pursuant to section 46b-81. The order may direct that security be given therefor on such terms as the court may deem desirable, including an order to either party to contract with a third party for periodic payments or payments contingent on a life to the other party. In determining whether alimony shall be awarded, and the duration and amount of the award, the court shall hear the witnesses, if any, of each party, except as provided in subsection (a) of section 46b-51, shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the annulment, dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties and the award, if any, which the court may make pursuant to section 46b-81, and, in the case of a parent to whom the custody of minor children has been awarded, the desirability of such parent’s securing employment.”

       The Appellate Court also rejected the defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s award of counsel fees to defend the appeal. Passamano v. Passamano, 28 Conn. App. 854, 856-61, 612 A.2d 141 (1992).

       We have indicated that if alimony is not awarded in a final dissolution decree, it cannot be awarded in the future based on changed circumstances. Ridolfi v. Ridolfi, 178 Conn. 377, 379-80, 423 A.2d 85 (1979).

       The defendant argues that the plaintiff should be precluded from claiming that the order to make mortgage and tax payments could not be alimony as a result of her specific waiver at the time of the entry of the decree, because she failed to raise this argument as an alternate ground for affirmance under Practice Book § 4013 (a) (1) (A). Section 4013 provides in relevant part: “If any appellee wishes to . . . present for review alternate grounds upon which the judgment may be affirmed . . . that appellee shall file a preliminary statement of issues within fourteen days from the filing of the appellant’s preliminary statement of the issues.” It is clear that we cannot consider § 4013 in a vacuum, but rather must consider it in light of Practice Book § 4185. Peck v. Jacquemin, 196 Conn. 53, 61-62 n.13, 491 A.2d 1043 (1985) (making references to §§ 3012 [a] and 3063 of the Practice Book [1978], predecessors to §§ 4013 and 4185, respectively). Section 4185 provides that the “court on appeal shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subsequent to the trial.” The defendant never claimed in the trial court, or in the Appellate Court, that the payments at issue in the present case were orders of alimony. Because the Appellate Court of its own accord characterized the payments as alimony, and the plaintiff had no notice of the potential for that characterization, she should not be precluded from relying on her waiver of alimony in the original dissolution proceedings.

       The paragraph provides: “AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the wife and children are to reside in the family home located on Cedar Lake Road in Haddam, Connecticut, until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen years. At that time, the said home is to be sold and the equity after all costs and expenses and encumbrances have been paid, shall be divided equally between the parties. However, if the defendant husband misses any payments of support or taxes or mortgage payments as set forth therein, they shall be deducted from his share of the equity upon sale of the premises to a third party or to the wife. The wife shall have the option to purchase the defendant’s interest in said home within sixty days of the youngest child reaching the age of eighteen years. In the event that the fair market value for said purchase by wife, cannot be agreed upon, then each party shall obtain a real estate appraiser to determine fair market value and if the appraisers arrive at differing figures, the fair market value will be set at the average of the two appraisals. From this Date, the defendant shall pay all mortgage payments on said real property and shall pay all real estate taxes commencing with the tax due on January 1,1985, which represents the second half of the tax bill of the tax list of October, 1,1983. Additionally, the parties shall not further encumber the property without further order of the court. The plaintiff shall pay for homeowners insurance and to keep same in effect in amounts which will cover the full equity of the parties in the said premises.”

       We recognize that the Appellate Court in Berg v. Berg, 24 Conn. App. 509, 589 A.2d 885, cert. denied, 219 Conn. 908, 593 A.2d 135 (1991), held that a decree ordering a former spouse, not in possession, to share in the costs of future repairs of the marital home until its sale upon the children reaching age eighteen constituted an order of alimony and not a property division under General Statutes § 46b-81. The order in Berg was, however, distinguishable from the order in the present case. First, unlike future repairs, an obligation of uncertain existence and magnitude, the obligation to pay mortgage installments and real estate taxes was a regularly accruing certainty. Second, the mortgage and tax payments order in the present case, unlike the repair obligation oí Berg, was part of the structure of the property division of the marital home. The decree provided that should the defendant fail to make any mortgage or tax payments, the missed payments “shall be deducted from his share of the equity upon sale of the premises . . . .” Although we distinguish Berg from the present case, we do not wish to imply that an order directing a party to pay future expenses for repairs on a home that is to be subsequently sold and the proceeds divided pursuant to § 46b-81 must be something other than a division of property. We leave that issue for another day.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Peters, C. J. Berdon, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    City of Stamford v. Milivoje Kovac et al.
    (14644)
    Peters, C. J., Callahan, Berdon, Katz and Palmer, Js.

      Argued September 30—
    decision released December 7, 1993

      James V. Minor, assistant corporation counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Daniel McCabe, corporation counsel, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Sigmund L. Miller, for the appellees (defendants).

      Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Janet P. Brooks, assistant attorney general, filed a brief for the commissioner of environmental protection as amicus curiae.
   Peters, C. J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a temporary injunction should be deemed a permanent injunction, and hence an appealable order, because the injunction orders restorative work to be performed in order to prevent further environmental degradation. The plaintiff, the city of Stamford, brought an action seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the defendant Milivoje Kovac alleging that he was the owner of property that was subject to a stipulated judgment concerning impairment of a wetlands in violation of General Statutes § 22a-36 et seq. On the motion of the plaintiff, Sylvester Beserminje and Lida Nosik were subsequently added as defendants. After a hearing, the trial court issued a temporary injunction ordering Kovac and Beserminje (defendants) to remove fill and to replace native plants in order to stabilize the wetlands. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which vacated the injunction.Stamfords.Kovac, 29 Conn. App. 105, 111, 612 A.2d 1229 (1992). We granted the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal, and now reverse.

The opinion of the Appellate Court reports the relevant facts. “Kovac, acting as trustee for Gavra M. Kovac, his brother, purchased a lot on Long Ridge Road, Stamford, on November 5, 1988. On July 7 or 8,1990, approximately 11,000 square feet of wetlands were filled with 800 cubic yards of fill. Testimony indicated that the fill caused siltation of a downstream pond and potential pollution of an underground aquifer and local wells.

“The land was sold to Beserminje on July 16, 1990. Lida Nosik acted as Beserminje’s attorney-in-fact at the real estate closing. On August 21,1990, the plaintiff brought this action alleging that Kovac [had] violated the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, General Statutes § 22a-36 et seq., and seeking both temporary and permanent injunctions. Attached to the pleadings was a verification and certification statement alleging that unless a temporary injunction was granted to correct the illegal filling of the adjoining pond, there would be irreparable harm to the wetlands, pond and environment.

“Hearings regarding a temporary injunction were held on September 10, 11 and 17, 1990. A temporary injunction issued on October 23,1990, ordering removal of the fill was subsequently vacated because it was directed solely against Kovac despite the fact that Beserminje [had become] the owner of the property on July 16, 1990. Neither Beserminje nor Nosik was a party at the time of the September hearings, but both were subsequently added as defendants on October 1, 1990.

“Another hearing regarding the issuance of a temporary injunction was held on April 1,1991. Beserminje was not present, although his attorney-in-fact, Nosik, was and testified as to the circumstances surrounding Beserminje's purchase of the property.

“The trial court issued an ‘Order Granting Preliminary Injunction’ dated April 1, 1991, against Beserminje and Kovac. It was not directed against Nosik. The order, which was essentially the same as the October 23,1990 temporary injunction, required Kovac and Beserminje (1) to remove the fill on lot A-2 and return said property to its condition and grade on the 1987 site plan, (2) to replant native plants to stabilize the disturbed ground after the fill is removed, (3) to regrade the lot to the original contours, and (4) to replant the lot with native species of plants and shrubs in order to stabilize the ground and to prevent runoff. If the work was not done to the satisfaction of the plaintiff within forty-five days, Kovac and Beserminje would [be required to] pay a daily civil penalty of $250 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was authorized to hire an independent contractor to comply with the order and the cost of the work would become a lien on the lot to be collected as a judgment.” Stamford v. Kovac, supra, 106-108.

The Appellate Court, although it recognized that the trial court and the parties had treated the plaintiffs request for relief as an application for a temporary injunction and not for a permanent injunction, concluded that the terms of the order had converted it into a permanent injunction. Id., 110. Considering the order as a permanent injunction, the Appellate Court determined that its merits were immediately reviewable and that the trial court had exceeded its authority in ordering restoration of the wetlands prior to a final judgment rendered after a full exploration of all of the contentions of the parties. Id., 111. The court did not, therefore, consider the defendants’ alternate claim that the temporary injunction violated their due process rights under the constitutions of the United States and the state of Connecticut. Id.

In the absence of an applicable statutory rule to the contrary, we have consistently held that a temporary injunction is not immediately appealable. See, e.g., Pendiman Corp. v. White Oak Corp., 195 Conn. 393, 396-99, 488 A.2d 449 (1985); Doublewal Corp. v. Toffolon, 195 Conn. 384, 392-93, 488 A.2d 444 (1985); Board of Education v. Shelton Education Assn., 173 Conn. 81, 88, 376 A.2d 1080 (1977); Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Brush, 138 Conn. 370, 374-75, 84 A.2d 681 (1951); Olcott v. Pendleton, 128 Conn. 292, 294-95, 22 A.2d 633 (1941). The wisdom of such a rule is particularly evident in cases ordering the abatement of an environmental hazard, which would otherwise continue unchecked during the pendency of the appeal process. See, e.g., Public Acts 1993, No. 93-244. Just as environmental appeals must conform to the rules for the exhaustion of administrative remedies; Polymer Resources, Ltd. v. Keeney, 227 Conn. 545, 564-65, 630 A.2d 1304 (1993); so they must conform to the rules that postpone appeals until the trial court has rendered a final judgment.

The defendants claim that these well established principles do not apply in this case because the terms of the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court did more than preserve the status quo. The defendants maintain that, although the trial court might have issued a temporary injunction to enjoin further degradation of the environment in the future, the trial court lacked the authority to issue a temporary injunction that orders restoration of the environment. The defendants therefore contend that the trial court’s mandatory injunction must be considered, despite its contrary denomination, a permanent injunction that is a final order. We disagree.

Although we have not previously considered whether a trial court has the authority to issue a mandatory injunction in advance of a final adjudication of the rights of the parties, there is ample precedent in other jurisdictions that a trial court, sitting as a court of equity, may issue such an order. Federal law has long taken a broad view of the equitable authority of trial courts to issue mandatory injunctions to preserve the status quo. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that “where a defendant, with notice of the filing of a bill for an injunction, proceeds to complete the acts sought to be enjoined, the court may, by mandatory injunction, compel a restoration of the status quo.” Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Northside Belt Ry. Co., 276 U.S. 475, 479, 48 S. Ct. 361, 72 L. Ed. 661 (1928). Earlier, then Circuit Judge Taft affirmed the court’s equitable authority to issue a preliminary injunction that compels affirmative conduct in order to preserve the status quo. “The office of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until, upon final hearing, the court may grant full relief. Generally this can be accomplished by an injunction prohibitory in form, but it sometimes happens that the status quo is a condition not of rest, but of action, and the condition of rest is exactly what will inflict irreparable injury upon [the] complainant, which he appeals to a court of equity to protect him from. In such a case courts of equity issue mandatory writs before the case is heard on its merits.” Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Ry. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 F. 730, 741 (N.D. Ohio 1893); see also Peoria Ry. Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 528, 535, 44 S. Ct. 194, 68 L. Ed. 427 (1924). This principle continues to be followed in more recent federal cases. See, e.g., Stell v. Board of Education, 318 F.2d 425, 427 (5th Cir. 1963) (trial court ordered to fashion preliminary injunction to require local school board to make prompt and reasonable start toward school desegregation); Bergen Drug Co. v. Parke, Davis & Co., 307 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1962) (trial court should have granted preliminary injunction requiring continuance of business relationship pending final adjudication of private antitrust action).

Courts in sister states have similarly recognized that trial courts have the discretionary authority, in the proper circumstances, to issue a preliminary mandatory injunction designed to preserve the status quo. See, e.g., Board of Supervisors v. McMahon, 219 Cal. App. 3d 286, 295, 268 Cal. Rptr. 219 (1990); Bachman v. Harrington, 184 N.Y. 458, 464, 77 N.E. 657 (1906). The status quo, for these purposes, has been defined as “the last, actual, peaceable, noncontested condition which preceded the pending controversy.” Chicago Title Ins. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. App. 1990); Carriage Way Apartments v. Pojman, 172 Ill. App. 3d 827, 836, 527 N.E.2d 89 (1988). Significantly, an Arizona court has upheld the authority of a trial court to issue a preliminary mandatory injunction requiring the removal of a wooden wall that allegedly diverted the natural flow of a local waterway in violation of applicable floodplain laws. Burton v. Celentano, 134 Ariz. 594, 596-97, 658 P.2d 247 (1982).

In light of these cases, we are unpersuaded that a temporary mandatory injunction differs in kind from any other temporary injunction. The merits of such an injunction are not immediately reviewable unless the mandatory action ordered by the trial court is not subsequently reversible if the trial court is found, upon appeal from the final judgment, to have exceeded its authority. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Brush, supra, 373. In this case, if the defendants were finally to prevail, they could be fully compensated by way of monetary relief for any expenses incurred by them in complying with the court’s order. There is, therefore, no final judgment.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to dismiss the defendants’ appeal.

In this opinion Callahan, Katz and Palmer, Js., concurred.

Berdon, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree that the trial court has the authority to issue a temporary mandatory injunction. See Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Sup. 394, 400, 515 A.2d 134 (1986) (in reciting the chronology of medicaid abortion litigation, the court refers to the entry of “a temporary mandatory injunction in favor of the [plaintiff] classes [poor women and certain physicians] ordering the defendants [state treasurer and commissioner of income maintenance] to pay, under the medicaid program, for the costs of all therapeutic abortions whether or not the life of the woman was endangered by carrying the fetus to term”).

I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the temporary mandatory injunction issued in this case is not appealable. The majority holds that it is not appealable because “if the defendants were finally to prevail, they could be fully compensated by way of monetary relief for any expenses incurred by them in complying with the court’s order.” There is nothing in the record, however, to support that statement. It is inappropriate for this court to make such a factual finding.

Based upon the facts that are before us, compliance with the temporary mandatory injunction requiring the removal of the fill would obviously interfere with the enjoyment of the land in its present state, which cannot be compensated through a monetary award. See Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Brush, 138 Conn. 370, 374, 84 A.2d 681 (1951) (indicating that the granting of immediate possession of real property to a utility pending a decision on the utility company’s petition to take the property under its delegated powers of eminent domain would be appealable); Rutkoski v. Zalaski, 90 Conn. 108, 114, 96 A. 365 (1916) (interference with a person’s use of his or her land constitutes irreparable injury). In this case, removal of the fill clearly would prevent the defendants from using the property in the state it was in prior to the removal.

There is a more compelling reason why the granting of this temporary mandatory injunction is an appealable order. This court recognized in Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co., 227 Conn. 175, 198-99, 629 A.2d 1116 (1993), that “[t]he legislature has expressed a strong public policy in favor of protecting and preserving the natural resources, and particularly the wetlands, of this state. ‘The inland wetlands and watercourses of the state of Connecticut are an indispensable and irreplaceable but fragile natural resource with which the citizens of the state have been endowed. The wetlands and watercourses are an interrelated web of nature essential to an adequate supply of surface and underground water; to hydrological stability and control of flooding and erosion; to the recharging and purification of groundwater; and to the existence of many forms of animal, aquatic and plant life. . . . The preservation and protection of the wetlands and watercourses from random, unnecessary, undesirable and unregulated uses, disturbance or destruction is in the public interest and is essential to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of the state.’ General Statutes § 22a-36; see Mario v. Fairfield, 217 Conn. 164, 168, 585 A.2d 87 (1991); Cioffoletti v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 209 Conn. 544, 559-60, 552 A.2d 796 (1989); see also General Statutes § 22a-l.” In order to enforce this “emphatic statement of the importance of protecting wetlands”; Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co., supra, 199; the legislature gave the Superior Court the power “to restrain a continuing violation of [the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act], to issue orders directing that the violation be corrected or removed and to assess civil penalties . . . .” General Statutes § 22a-44 (b). The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants pursuant to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, General Statutes § 22a-36 et seq.

In view of §§ 22a-36 and 22a-44 (b), if the trial court had denied the temporary mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff, the denial would have been an appeal-able order. This is clear because the failure to enter such an order could result in irreparable damage to the environment. The majority concedes this point when they state that an order would be appealable whenever “the mandatory action ordered by the trial court is not subsequently reversible if the trial court is found, upon appeal from the final judgment, to have exceeded its authority.”

Because a denial of the temporary mandatory injunction would have been appealable, it necessarily follows that the granting of the injunction should be appealable. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Brush, supra, a case relied upon by the majority, makes clear that appealability is a two-way street. The court reasoned that, because granting possession of another’s land to a utility company pending condemnation proceedings would be appealable, the denial of the order was necessarily appealable. Id., 374.

The majority claims that the “wisdom” of not allowing an appeal from a temporary mandatory injunction ordering abatement of an environmental hazard is “evident,” because otherwise the hazard would “continue unchecked during the pendency of the appeal process.” This claim ignores the fact that appealability is a two-way street—if the issuance of such an injunction cannot be appealed, then neither can the denial of such an injunction be appealed. Further, the majority conveniently overlooks our rule of appellate procedure that allows the trial judge to terminate an automatic stay of execution pending appeal. See Practice Book § 4046 (“if the judge who tried the case is of the opinion that an extension to appeal is sought or the appeal is taken only for delay or that the due administration of justice so requires that . . . judge may at any time, upon motion and hearing, order that the stay be terminated”).

Accordingly, I would also reverse the Appellate Court, but I would remand the matter to that court to determine whether the trial court properly issued the temporary mandatory injunction.

       We granted the plaintiff permission to appeal the following questions: (1) “In the circumstances of this case, should the Appellate Court have treated the trial court’s temporary injunction as an appealable final judgment?” and (2) “In the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court exceeded its powers on issuing the temporary injunction?” Stamford v. Kovac, 224 Conn. 916, 617 A.2d 171 (1992).

       In § 1 (b) of No. 93-244 of the 1993 Public Acts, the legislature expressly provided the state a right to appeal the issuance of a court order enjoining or restraining the enforcement of certain cease and desist orders issued by the commissioner of environmental protection, as delineated in § 1 (a). The express inclusion of a right to appeal in this act underscores the absence of such a right in other circumstances. We presume that such a legislative enactment constitutes a change in existing law. Hall Manor Owner's Assn. v. West Haven, 212 Conn. 147, 155, 561 A.2d 1373 (1989).

       On its facts, however, Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Brush, 138 Conn. 370, 374-75, 84 A.2d 681 (1951), which involved condemnation of a home, raises considerations significantly different from those involved in the facts of this case.

       The defendants’ brief does not argue to the contrary. Their position appears to be that a temporary mandatory injunction is unwarranted in the absence of “basically severe and emergency violations.” The risk of continued environmental degradation might well constitute such a violation. In any case, however, the substantive justification for a temporary mandatory injunction does not affect its appealability.

       I am bewildered by footnote 2 of the majority opinion. The right of appeal provided by No. 93-244 of the 1993 Public Acts is very limited. It applies only if the commissioner of environmental protection finds that an activity “will result in or is likely to result in imminent and substantial damage to the environment, or to public health” and issues a cease and desist order pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-7. Number 93-244 of the 1993 Public Acts does not provide a right to appeal from a trial court order entered pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-44 (b), the statute pursuant to which the trial court in this case issued the temporary mandatory injunction.


text:
    Steven Goodson et al. v. State of Connecticut
    (14679)
    Peters, C. J., Callahan, Berdon, Katz and Palmer, Js.

      Argued September 30—
    decision released December 14, 1993

      Thadd A. Gnocchi, assistant attorney general, with whom were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Charles A. Overend, assistant attorney general, for the appellant (defendant).

      Stephen F. McEleney, with whom, on the brief, was Albert J. McGrail, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
   Berdon, J.

The question we certified in this appeal raises the following issues: (1) whether an order entered pursuant to General Statutes § 52-422 reinstating an employee pending the resolution of the grievance procedure established by a collective bargaining agreement is a final judgment from which an aggrieved party can appeal; (2) whether this appeal is moot because the order of temporary reinstatement expired; and (3) whether the failure to seek review, pursuant to Practice Book §§ 4049 and 4053, of the denial of a stay of execution sought pursuant to Practice Book § 4047 is a permissible ground for dismissal of the underlying appeal.

On May 12, 1992, the defendant state of Connecticut through the warden of the John R. Manson Youth Institution, a state correctional facility, terminated the employment of the plaintiff Steven Goodson. Goodson and his collective bargaining agent, the plaintiff American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local No. 387 (union), challenged the discharge by filing a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement then in force between the union and the defendant. The third and final prearbitration step of the contractual grievance procedure was scheduled to take place on August 18, 1992. On July 9, 1992, the plaintiffs brought a petition in the trial court under § 52-422, seeking to have Goodson reinstated as an employee pending the disposition of the third step of the grievance procedure. On August 6,1992, the trial court, Stengel, J., ordered that Goodson be reinstated until September 3, 1992.

The defendant took a timely appeal to the Appellate Court from the order of reinstatement. The defendant sought appellate review of the following: Was the trial court correct “in entering an order which is contrary to both the agreement of the parties as reflected in the collective bargaining agreement and the state’s public policy pursuant to the State Personnel Act” and in “entering an order which is contrary to the language and purpose of [General Statutes] § 52-422?”

The defendant, pursuant to Practice Book § 4047, sought two stays from the trial court’s order of reinstatement. The first, which was requested before the appeal was taken, was denied by the court, Dorsey, J., without prejudice. The second request for a stay was sought after the appeal had been taken, but was not heard by the court until the date the reinstatement order had expired, and the court, Stengel, J., denied it as moot. The defendant did not seek a review from the Appellate Court under Practice Book § 4053 of the trial court’s denials of the requests for a stay.

On December 3,1992, while the appeal was pending, the Appellate Court, on its own motion, ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because of the lack of a final judgment, mootness and failure to comply with Practice Book §§ 4049 and 4053. The Appellate Court granted the motion to dismiss without articulating the grounds upon which it was granted. Accordingly, we will review all three issues raised in the Appellate Court’s motion to show cause in order to determine if there existed any proper ground to dismiss the appeal.

I

The defendant first claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly dismissed the appeal on the ground that the trial court’s order reinstating Goodson under § 52-422 is not a final judgment. With certain exceptions pertaining to interlocutory orders or rulings; Madigan v. Madigan, 224 Conn. 749, 752, 620 A.2d 1276 (1993); State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983); a party may appeal only from a final judgment. General Statutes §§ 52-263 and 51-197a; Solomon v. Keiser, 212 Conn. 741, 745-46, 562 A.2d 524 (1989). “The finality requirement underlying our appellate review represents a clear and firm policy against piecemeal appeals.” State v. Powell, 186 Conn. 547, 551, 442 A.2d 939, cert. denied sub nom. Moeller v. Connecticut, 459 U.S. 838, 103 S. Ct. 85, 74 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1982).

The test of a final judgment is “ ‘if the rights of the parties are concluded so that further proceedings cannot affect them Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173, 176, 413 A.2d 819, appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 801,100 S. Ct. 20, 62 L. Ed. 2d 14 (1979). “This is true whether the ruling is made in an independent proceeding or is incidental to the main issue.” Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Brush, 138 Conn. 370, 374, 84 A.2d 681 (1951).

Section 52-422 confers on the trial court broad jurisdiction to enter orders and decrees pending an arbitration “as may be necessary to protect the rights of the parties pending the rendering of the award and to secure the satisfaction thereof when rendered and confirmed.” Although it might be desirable to adopt a bright line approach to apply to appeals pursuant to specific statutes that would obviate the need for individual case determinations; see Paranteau v. DeVita, 208 Conn. 515, 520, 544 A.2d 634 (1988); such an approach is not possible or practical in the present case because of the broad sweep of § 52-422. Accordingly, we must focus our lens on the specific remedy crafted by the trial court.

In the present case, the trial court ordered that the defendant reinstate Goodson for the specific period of August 6 through September 3, 1992. This order, although collateral to the grievance procedure provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, was fixed and final pursuant to a distinct statutory authority under which the trial court purported to act. Therefore, it is analogous to the order that was held appeal-able in Wardell v. Killingly, 96 Conn. 718, 115 A. 539 (1921). In Wardell, this court held that an order denying an application for mandamus, sought pursuant to a statute that authorized the court to entertain such applications “in any action pending before it,” was a final judgment for the purposes of appeal, notwithstanding that the main action had not been concluded. Id., 722. The order in this case presents a more compelling case for review, because even if the parties had proceeded to arbitration after the third step in the grievance proceedings, there still would not have been any other court proceeding to which the order for temporary reinstatement entered pursuant to § 52-422 could be construed as collateral.

Even if the order of temporary reinstatement were to be viewed as falling within the “gray area” between final judgments and interlocutory orders, it would still be appealable. “[Tjhere are certain judgments which are undoubtedly final and others that are clearly interlocutory and not appealable. The problem, of course, arises in the gray area between these obvious certainties. . . . To evaluate those orders that lie in the gray area we have in recent years relied on the standard articulated in State v. Curcio, [supra]. That standard permits the immediate appealability of an order in two circumstances: (1) where the order or action terminates a separate and distinct proceeding, or (2) where the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Madigan v. Madigan, supra, 753.

The order in the present case concluded the rights of the parties so that no further proceedings could affect them. Our cases have made clear that where an order requires monetary payments that are irretrievable, so that there is no right of reimbursement, as in the present case, the order is immediately appealable. Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, 162 Conn. 540, 548, 295 A.2d 519 (1972); Hiss v. Hiss, 135 Conn. 333, 336, 64 A.2d 173 (1949); see C. Tait, Connecticut Appellate Practice and Procedure (2d Ed. 1993) § 2.14 (d). In Hiss v. Hiss, supra, this court held that an interlocutory order of support payments in an equitable action brought by a wife for support of herself and her children was an appeal-able final judgment because the husband would have no right to be reimbursed even if judgment was ultimately rendered in his favor. Likewise, the wages paid to Goodson as a result of the order of reinstatement could not be recouped by the defendant even if it ultimately prevailed in the grievance proceedings. See General Statutes § 31-71b (requirement for payment of wages to an employee); General Statutes § 31-71a (2) (defining “employee” as including any person “suffered or permitted to work by an employer” [emphasis added]).

Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the order of reinstatement under § 52-422, although collateral to the grievance proceedings, is a final judgment and ripe for appellate review.

II

The defendant also claims that mootness was not a proper basis for the Appellate Court’s dismissal of the appeal. Of course, mootness implicates the jurisdiction of the court. “It is a well-settled general rule that the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow. ... In the absence of an actual and existing controversy for us to adjudicate . . . the courts of this state may not be used as a vehicle to obtain judicial opinions upon points of law . . . and where the question presented is purely academic, we must refuse to entertain the appeal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Delevieleuse v. Manson, 184 Conn. 434, 436, 439 A.2d 1055 (1981).

A well defined exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Moshier v. Goodnow, 217 Conn. 303, 307, 586 A.2d 557 (1991); Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 573, 499 A.2d 1158 (1985). The time dimension that the name of the exception implies is necessary but not itself sufficient to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. Rather, we must look to additional factors to determine whether we should decide the issue even though it may have no immediate practical consequences to a party. Sobocinski v. Freedom of Information Commission, 213 Conn. 126, 135, 566 A.2d 703 (1989). Some of those factors include whether the issue (1) could affect an ongoing program of the state penal or civil system, (2) could affect the complaining party in the future, and (3) involves a matter of public importance. Moshier v. Goodnow, supra; Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, supra, 572-73. No one factor is controlling, nor must all of the above factors be present. To decide the applicability of the exception, we must instead review the circumstances of each case. See Delevieleuse v. Manson, supra, 437 n.2.

As a threshold matter, we conclude that the substantive issues presented by this case are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” See Hartford Principals & Supervisors’Assn. v. Shedd, 202 Conn. 492, 498, 522 A.2d 264 (1987). The substantive issue in Shedd was whether the mediation and arbitration procedures were available to resolve contractual disputes between a school board and a teachers union arising during the term of an existing contract. Id., 493. We reached the merits of that question, despite the fact that the collective bargaining agreements under which the midterm disputes arose had expired prior to the appeal. Id., 498. The case fell within the “capable of repetition” exception because midterm disputes are likely to arise often, and collective bargaining agreements, generally having a two to three year lifespan, are likely to expire before a midterm dispute can be fully litigated. Id., 499; see also Board of Education v. Board of Labor Relations, 201 Conn. 685, 686 n.2, 519 A.2d 41 (1986).

Similarly, we conclude that the question of whether a trial court may reinstate a discharged state employee pending the operation of a contractual grievance procedure is a fundamental labor relations issue likely to arise again, yet apt to evade review. Orders pursuant to § 52-422 are limited in nature. The purpose of § 52-422 is to protect the rights of the parties pending the resolution of a dispute in another forum. In the present case, the order was specifically limited to a reinstatement for a period of twenty-eight days, hardly a sufficient time period in which a party could obtain appellate review.

The extent to which § 52-422 confers authority upon the Superior Court to intervene in a state employee bargaining agreement grievance procedure is a question that affects an ongoing program of the civil system. The issues raised by the proper construction of § 52-422 involve the administration of the State Personnel Act. General Statutes §§ 5-193 through 5-269. General Statutes § 5-240 (c) provides that “[a]n appointing authority may dismiss any employee in the classified service when he considers the good of the service will be served thereby.” Entering an order of temporary reinstatement under § 52-422 implicates § 5-240. See Board of Education v. Board of Labor Rela tions, supra (issue of collective bargaining over teacher evaluations affects ongoing program of state’s education system).

The issues presented by this case have the potential to affect the complaining party in the future. Although the issues may be moot for Goodson, they will continue to affect the union as a representative of state employees in its ongoing relationship with the defendant as an employer. Finally, we believe that the trial court’s § 52-422 order to reinstate an employee during the contractual grievance process presents important issues of state employee labor relations, statutory construction, and the role of courts in collective bargaining grievance procedures. Accordingly, we agree with the defendant that, although Goodson may not be affected by the outcome of this appeal, the appeal presents issues that should be resolved because it is fully within the exception of being “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”

Ill

Finally, we also agree with the defendant that the appeal should not have been dismissed on the ground that the defendant failed to comply with Practice Book §§ 4049 and 4053. Practice Book § 4047 allows a party to move for a stay of execution. Sections 4049 and 4053 provide that the sole remedy for the denial of such a stay is by motion for review. The plaintiffs argue that since there was no motion for review, the appeal was correctly dismissed. The issue on the dismissal, however, was not whether the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of the stay, but rather whether the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the order reinstating Good-son under § 52-422. The plaintiffs point to no authority that would make the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to hear an appeal from a judgment dependent upon whether the party aggrieved by the judgment sought a stay or whether, upon being denied a stay, that party sought appellate review of the merits of that denial.

We hold that the Appellate Court had no basis for dismissing, on its own, the defendant’s appeal, and it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal on its merits.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

        Goodson v. State, 224 Conn. 926, 619 A.2d 850 (1993).

       General Statutes § 52-422 provides: “order pendente lite. At anytime before an award is rendered pursuant to an arbitration under this chapter, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when said court is not in session, any judge thereof, upon application of any party to the arbitration, may make forthwith such order or decree, issue such process and direct such proceedings as may be necessary to protect the rights of the parties pending the rendering of the award and to secure the satisfaction thereof when rendered and confirmed.”

       Practice Book § 4049 provides in relevant part: “The sole remedy of any party desiring the court to review an order concerning a stay of execution shall be by motion for review under Sec. 4053.”

       Practice Book § 4053 provides in relevant part: “The court may, on written motion for review stating the grounds for the relief sought, modify or vacate . . . any order made by the trial court concerning a stay of execution on appeal. . . .”

       Practice Book § 4047 provides: “In non-criminal matters in which the automatic stay provisions of Sec. 4046 are not applicable and in which there are no statutory stay provisions, application for a stay of the judgment or order of the superior court pending appeal shall be made to the judge who tried the case unless that judge is unavailable, in which case the application may be made to any judge of the superior court. Such an application may also be filed before judgment and may be ruled upon at the time judg-. ment is rendered unless the court concludes that a further hearing or consideration of such application is necessary. A temporary stay may be ordered sua sponte or on written or oral motion, ex parte or otherwise, pending the filing or consideration of an application for stay pending appeal. The application shall be considered on an expedited basis and the granting of a stay of an order for the payment of money may be conditional on the posting of suitable security.”

       Step III of the grievance procedure in the contract of employment provides: “Director of Personnel and Labor Relations or Designee. An unresolved grievance may be appealed to the Director of Personnel and Labor Relations within seven (7) days of the date that the Step II response is due. Said Director or his/her designated representative shall hold a conference within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the grievance and issue a response within ten (10) days of the conference. The local union president or his/her designee, staff representative and steward may be present at the Step III level.” Those grievances that are not resolved in step III may be subject to arbitration under § 9 of the contract of employment as follows: “Arbitration, (a) Grievances during the life of this Agreement shall be submitted to the Connecticut Board of Mediation and Arbitration within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Step III response, or if no response, within thirty (30) days of the due date. Submission to arbitration shall be by letter, postage pre-paid, addressed to the Board; a copy of such letter will also be mailed concurrently to the Director of Personnel and Labor Relations or his/her designee. The arbitrator shall have no power to add to, subtract from, alter, or modify this Agreement, nor to grant to either party matters which were not obtained in the bargaining process, nor to impose any remedy or right of relief for any period of time prior to the effective date of the Agreement, nor to grant pay retroactively for more than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date a grievance was submitted at Step I. The arbitrator’s decision shall be final and binding on the parties in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes Section [52-418], provided, however, neither the submission of questions of arbitrability to any arbitrator in the first instance nor any voluntary submission shall be deemed to diminish the scope of judicial review over arbitral awards, including awards on arbitrability.”

       The defendant also sought review of whether the trial court was correct in “entering an order which is contrary to fundamental principles of labor relations” and “entering an order which violates the principle of sovereign immunity.”

       General Statutes § 52-493, previously codified in 1921 as § 6065, provides: “Any court having cognizance of writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition or ne exeat may, in any action pending before it, make any order, interlocutory or final, in the nature of any such writ, to the extent of its jurisdiction, so far as it may appear to be an appropriate form of relief.”

       We note that before the termination of the reinstatement order, the plaintiffs sought a second reinstatement order. The trial court heard the motion but denied the relief the plaintiffs sought.