author: NORCOTT, J.

text:
    JAMES P. BUTLER, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR EX REL. MARJORIE SKIDMORE v. HARTFORD TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, INC., ET AL.
    (SC 15745)
    Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, McDonald and Peters, Js.

      Argued September 23
    officially released December 30, 1997

      Glenn T. Terk, for the appellant (defendant Robert Meyers).

      Glenn A. Woods, assistant attorney general, with whom were Edward Reynolds, Judah J. Harris and Gary Williams, assistant attorneys general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

NORCOTT, J.

The plaintiff, the commissioner of the department of labor, brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, on behalf of Marjorie Skid-more against the defendants, Hartford Technical Institute, Inc. (Hartec), and its president, Robert Meyers, to collect unpaid overtime wages allegedly owed to Skidmore by the defendants. The principal issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly held that Robert Meyers, as the individual who possessed exclusive authority and responsibility for determining Hartec employees’ hours of employment and wages, personally was hable as an “employer” for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to § 31-72. Apart from contesting his personal liability, the defendant also claims that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) Skidmore was not an exempt employee under General Statutes § 31-58 (f); (2) she was entitled to overtime wages despite her failure to inform her employer of the number of hours she had worked; and (3) she was entitled to double damages. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After a court trial, the court found the following facts. The defendant was the president, treasurer and the person in control of Hartec. His wife, Susan Meyers, was the vice president and secretary. Skidmore was employed as a bookkeeper by Hartec from April 24, 1992 to March 8, 1993. During her employment with Hartec, Skidmore was required to work overtime, which she did and for which she was not paid. In April, 1993, Skidmore filed a claim for unpaid overtime wages with the plaintiff, who, after investigation, concluded that Skidmore was owed wages. Neither Hartec nor the defendant maintained time records for Skidmore. Therefore, the plaintiff used the records that Skidmore maintained to compute the wages due her.

The court concluded that: (1) Skidmore was not an exempt employee under § 31-58 (f) because she was not employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity; (2) the defendant expected Skidmore to work overtime and was aware that she did so; (3) Skidmore was entitled to twice her wages pursuant to § 31-72; (4) Hartec was liable as an employer; and (5) the defendant personally was liable because he was the “cause for the withholding of, and the failure and refusal to pay the overtime wages.” This appeal followed.

I

The defendant’s principal claim is that the trial court improperly interpreted § 31-72 to permit personal liability when Skidmore’s employer was Hartec. Specifically, the defendant claims that: (1) § 31-72 does not impose liability on officers or agents of a corporate employer; and (2) he can not be an “employer” as the term is defined in General Statutes § 31-71a (1) because the employer in this case was a corporation and the categories under the definition of employer are mutually exclusive. The plaintiff argues that the definition of employer in § 31-71a (1) includes “any individual” and that the defendant is hable, not as an officer or agent, but under the facts of this case, as an employer having individual authority to determine Skidmore’s hours of employment and payment of wages. We agree with the plaintiff.

The trial court properly reasoned that the defendant personally was hable for the nonpayment of Skidmore’s overtime wages pursuant to § 31-72 because “[h]e was the president and treasurer and the person in control of the institute. The evidence at trial clearly indicated that he was solely responsible for ah decisions in regard to wages. He was specifically the cause for the withholding of, and the failure and refusal to pay the overtime wages to Skidmore.”

Our consideration of whether, if a corporate employer exists, an individual can be considered an “employer” pursuant to § 31-72 is guided by well established principles of statutory construction. “ ‘Statutory construction is a question of law and therefore our review is plenary.’ ” Jupiter Realty Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 242 Conn. 363, 367, 698 A.2d 312 (1997). “The process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature. Frillici v. Westport, 231 Conn. 418, 431, 650 A.2d 557 (1994). In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of this case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Illuminating Co. v. New Haven, 240 Conn. 422, 431, 692 A.2d 742 (1997).

We begin our analysis with a review of the pertinent statutory language. Section 31-72 provides that “[wjhen any employer fails to pay an employee wages in accordance with the provisions of sections 31-71a to 31-71Í, inclusive . . . such employee . . . may recover, in a civil action, twice the full amount of such wages, with costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Section 31-71a (1) defines employer as “any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, the administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased person, the conservator of the estate of an incompetent, or the receiver, trustee, successor or assignee of any of the same, employing any person, including the state and any political subdivision thereof . . . .”

The defendant first argues that Skidmore’s employer is Hartec and that he personally cannot be liable because § 31-72 does not provide for the collection of unpaid wages against an officer or agent of a corporation. This argument, however, does not respond to the theory of liability upon which the plaintiff relies. Count two of the complaint does not allege that the defendant is liable by virtue of his position as a corporate officer. Rather, the plaintiff argues that the defendant is liable because he was the person who determined both Skid-more’s employment hours and wages and “as such he was the employer.”

The defendant claims, however, that by the express terms of § 31-71a (1), once an employer, Hartec in this case, has been identified as having statutory liability, such liability cannot also be imposed upon an individual. The plaintiff does not dispute that Hartec, a corporate entity, was Skidmore’s employer. The plaintiff argues, however, that the categories under the definition of employer are not exclusive and that the defendant falls within the definition of employer because one of the statutory terms is “individual.” Under the plaintiffs interpretation, the fact that Hartec was Skidmore’s employer does not preclude the defendant, as the individual in the corporation with exclusive authority to set Skidmore’s hours of employment and wages and whose exercise of that authority was the direct cause of the failure to pay wages, from also being considered an employer for purposes of § 31-72.

The plaintiff further argues that his construction of employer as used in § 31-72 is necessary in order to effectuate the legislature’s intent. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that § 31-72 must be read in conjunction with the text of General Statutes § 31-71g, which § 31-72 expressly incorporates by reference.

We have held that in ascertaining legislative intent, “a statute is to be considered as a whole, with a view toward reconciling its separate parts in order to render an overall reasonable interpretation . . . .” (Citations omitted.) Shortt v. New Milford Police Dept., 212 Conn. 294, 305, 562 A.2d 7 (1989); American Universal Ins. Co. v. DelGreco, 205 Conn. 178, 193, 530 A.2d 171 (1987); Peck v. Jacquemin, 196 Conn. 53, 63, 491 A.2d 1043 (1985). “ ‘[Statutes are to be interpreted with regard to other relevant statutes because the legislature is presumed to have created a consistent body of law.’ ” In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 524, 613 A.2d 748 (1992); see State v. Breton, 235 Conn. 206, 226, 663 A.2d 1026 (1995) (intent of legislature to be found from statutory scheme as whole). Mindful of these principles, we proceed to review § 31-71g.

Section 31-71g is the criminal counterpart of § 31-72 and provides that “[a]ny employer or any officer or agent of an employer or any other person authorized by an employer to pay wages who violates any provision of this part may be” fined or imprisoned or both, with the penalties varying with the amount of wages owed.

The defendant maintains that the plain language of § 31-72 does not authorize the imposition of liability to the same extent as § 31-71g. Although the defendant’s argument — that liability in the present case should be confined to Hartec, the corporate employer — has a “superficial textual appeal”; United Illuminating Co. v. New Haven, supra, 240 Conn. 455; it is unpersuasive in application because it leads to a bizarre result. Under the defendant’s interpretation of §§ 31-71a (1), 31-71g and 31-72, an individual could be convicted of a felony under § 31-71g and imprisoned for up to five years for violating the wage laws, yet that same individual could not be held liable pursuant to § 31-72 for the amount of unpaid wages merely because of the existence of a corporate employer. Although we agree that “the legislation could have been drafted more clearly so as to make explicit what was only implied”; id., 459; we are persuaded that the legislature could not have intended such an anomalous result. “The unreasonableness of the result obtained by the acceptance of one possible alternative interpretation of an act is a reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would provide a result that is reasonable. . . . When two constructions are possible, courts will adopt the one which makes the [statute] effective and workable, and not one which leads to difficult and possibly bizarre results. . . . We consider the statute as a whole with a view toward reconciling its parts in order to obtain a sensible and rational overall inteipretation. . . . We have long followed the guideline that [t]he intent of the lawmakers is the soul of the statute, and the search for this intent we have held to be the guiding star of the court. It must prevail over the literal sense and the precise letter of the language of the statute.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Anonymous, 237 Conn. 501, 514—15, 680 A.2d 956 (1996). We, therefore, agree with the plaintiff that when placed in its statutory context, the term employer as used in § 31-72 encompasses an individual who possesses the ultimate authority and control within a coiporate employer to set the hours of employment and pay wages and therefore is the specific or exclusive cause of improperly failing to do so.

Moreover, the interpretation of § 31-72 in this manner is consistent with the overall remedial nature of the overtime laws. Our legislature, in promulgating both civil and criminal penalties, recognized the important public policy of ensuring that employees receive wages due them. This court has specifically acknowledged § 31-72 as “a remedial statute” for the collection of wages that “provides penalties in order to deter employers from deferring wage payments once they have accrued.” Shortt v. New Milford Police Dept., supra, 212 Conn. 309; see Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 231 Conn. 690, 696, 651 A.2d 1286 (1995) (“[t]he purpose of § 31-72 is remedial, and therefore it must be given a liberal construction in favor of those whom the legislature intended to benefit”). We have recognized that “a primary purpose [of § 31-72] was to penalize the employers.” Shortt v. New Milford Police Dept., supra, 309 n.13. Our interpretation of the term employer as used in § 31-72, in contrast to the defendant’s narrow construction, effectuates the statutory policies of compensating employees and deterring employers from failing to pay wages.

Accordingly, on the basis of the language of § 31-72, the policy it was designed to implement, and its structural relationship to § 31-71g, we conclude that an individual personally can be liable as an employer pursuant to § 31-72, notwithstanding the fact that a corporation is also an employer of the claimant, if the individual is the ultimate responsible authority to set the hours of employment and to pay wages and is the specific cause of the wage violation.

Having established the contours of the definition of employer, we now apply it to the facts in the present case. The trial court expressly found Skidmore performed only work which the defendant and Susan Meyers requested. Skidmore was expected to work overtime and did so. The trial court further found that the defendant was the individual in control of, and solely responsible for, all decisions with regard to wages, and concluded that the defendant “was specifically the cause for the withholding of, and the failure and refusal to pay the overtime wages” to Skidmore. (Emphasis added.) The defendant “cannot overturn [these] finding[s] of fact[s] unless [he] can demonstrate that [they are] clearly erroneous. Practice Book § 4061; Pandolphe’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, [181 Conn. 217, 219-22, 435 A.2d 24 (1980)].” Campisano v. Nardi, 212 Conn. 282, 288, 562 A.2d 1 (1989).

The record amply supports the trial court’s findings regarding the defendant’s authority over Skidmore’s hours of employment and control over the payment of wages. The defendant was the president and treasurer of Hartec. Skidmore testified that she reported directly to the defendant and was closely supervised by him. The defendant told Skidmore, prior to hiring her, that she would be required to work long hours, and possibly some weekends, in order to get the accounting area caught up. On two occasions in June, 1992, the defendant urged Skidmore to stay late to complete projects that were needed the next morning.

Skidmore also testified that the supervisors of Hartec’s hourly employees gave those employees’ time cards directly to the defendant for his authorization. The time cards could not be processed and, therefore, employees would not be paid, if the cards did not bear the defendant’s initials. Although salaried employees did not have time cards for the defendant to approve, he checked the payroll, which was delivered directly to him in a sealed bag, before distribution. According to Skidmore’s testimony, she submitted her overtime hours to Susan Meyers who, at that time, was responsible for completing the payroll sheets. Susan Meyers told Skidmore that she had to discuss the hours with the defendant before including them in the payroll records. Viewed in its entirety, the evidence at trial demonstrates that the trial court’s findings that only the defendant could approve wage payments and his refusal to pay overtime wages was the cause of the failure to compensate Skidmore properly were not clearly erroneous.

II

The defendant next claims that the trial court improperly determined that Skidmore was not employed in a “bona fide administrative capacity” and, therefore, was not exempt from overtime compensation provisions. We disagree.

General Statutes § 31-76c provides: “No employer, except as otherwise provided herein, shall employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than forty hours, unless such employee receives remuneration for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” Section 31-58 (f) exempts from this entitlement to overtime compensation any “individual employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity as defined in the regulations of the Labor Commissioner . . . .” In order to be qualified for exclusion, an employee must meet all of the requirements of the exemption. Shell Oil Co. v. Ricciuti, 147 Conn. 277, 285-86, 160 A.2d 257 (1960). The burden rests on the employer to establish that the employee comes within the statutory exemption. Id., 283.

The defendant argues that Skidmore was employed in a bona fide administrative capacity according to the criteria established in § 31-60-15 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Specifically, the defendant argues that Skidmore qualifies as a bona fide administrative employee under the following description contained in § 31-60-15: “ ‘[E]mployee employed in a bona fide administrative capacity’ means any employee: (a) whose primary duty consists of . . . (1) The performance of office or nonmanual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of his employer or his employer’s customers . . . and (b) who customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment; and (c) . . . (2) who performs under only general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience or knowledge . . . ,”

The trial court held that Skidmore’s employment did not meet the elements set forth in subsections (a) (1), (b) and (c) (2) of § 31-60-15. Specifically, the trial court determined that Skidmore did not satisfy the requirements of subsection (a) (1) because “[s]he made no decisions that would impact on the business and had no authority to make policy or to supervise employees,” of subsection (b) because her “primary duty did not consist of exercising discretion and independent judgment,” and of subsection (c) (2) because she did not perform “under only general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge . . . .”

The primary factor in the determination of whether a person is employed in a bona fide administrative capacity, and thus exempt from overtime compensation, is the nature of his or her duties. See Shell Oil Co. v. Ricciuti, supra, 147 Conn. 285 (applying analysis to determination of executive capacity). In examining Skidmore’s responsibilities, the trial court specifically found that her “duties were primarily those of a bookkeeper. She handled accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll and checkbooks. . . . She was closely supervised by both [the defendant] and Susan Meyers and performed only work which they requested. She did not act independently or use independent judgment.”

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s factual findings regarding Skidmore’s duties. The defendant claims that Skidmore exercised discretion and independent judgment in her dealings with vendors. He characterizes her work as requiring specialized training and knowledge, and as being performed under only general supervision. Finally, the defendant relies heavily on his assertion that Skidmore’s previous jobs had all been salaried, exempt positions. “ ‘[W]here the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, those facts are clearly erroneous.’ ” E. Udolf, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 214 Conn. 741, 749, 573 A.2d 1211 (1990).

The record supports the trial court’s findings. Both Skidmore and Eileen Lewis, the investigator for the department of labor, testified regarding the scope of Skidmore’s responsibilities. Lewis stated that based on Skidmore’s duties, she was a nonexempt employee, and Skidmore testified that the defendant monitored her progress on her assignments and that she was called into his office for a daily status report; that her involvement with payroll was limited; and that the time cards for the hourly employees were reviewed directly by the defendant, who then gave them to Skidmore to complete the necessary payroll sheets for dispatch to the vendor.

m

The defendant next contends that, even if we were to assume that Skidmore was a nonexempt employee, the trial court improperly concluded that she was entitled to overtime wages because she was not authorized to work overtime and she failed to report her horns to her employer.

The trial court found that, despite the defendant’s testimony to the contrary, “on several occasions [Skidmore] was expected to work overtime and in fact did so.” The trial court also found that neither Hartec nor the defendant maintained records of her overtime hours as required by General Statutes § 31-66 and § 31-60-12 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

The defendant’s claims are not supported by the record. There was evidence that prior to hiring her, the defendant alerted Skidmore to the fact that she would have to work extra hours for a number of weeks. On at least two occasions Skidmore gave Susan Meyers documentation of her hours, only to be told that she would not be paid for them and that the topic was not to be discussed further. At the defendant’s request and with his approval, Skidmore stayed late to complete needed projects and worked with Susan Meyers on some of them. We conclude that the trial court properly concluded that the defendant authorized and expected Skidmore to work hours in excess of a forty hour week.

IV

The defendant’s final claim is that the trial court’s award of double damages to the plaintiff was improper because the record contained no evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. We disagree.

Section 31-72 provides for a discretionary award of double damages to employees who are successful in actions against their employers for wages due. Although the statutory language does not require evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness, cases interpreting and applying this statute have required such evidence. See Sansone v. Clifford, 219 Conn. 217, 229, 592 A.2d 931 (1991) (“[i]n an action for wages brought pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, awards for double damages and attorney’s fees are inappropriate in the absence of the trial court’s finding of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness” [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The defendant’s principal claim is that his failure to pay Skidmore for overtime could not have been in bad faith because she did not inform him of her hours and, therefore, he never had the information or opportunity to pay her overtime wages. The trial court’s memorandum of decision is unclear as to the basis of the double damages award. On the basis of our review of the record, however, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of bad faith to support the award of double damages. The trial court found that Skidmore was expected to work overtime and did so. Skidmore testified that the defendant made representations to her both before she was hired and during her employment that she would be compensated for her overtime hours. Skidmore provided documentation of her horns to Susan Meyers, who, after discussing it with the defendant, told her that she was not going to be paid for overtime. The defendant’s requests of Skidmore to work additional hours, his assurances that she would be paid, coupled with his subsequent denial of payment support the trial court’s decision to award double damages.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       General Statutes § 31-72 provides: “Civil action to collect wage claim, fringe benefit claim or arbitration award. When any employer fails to pay an employee wages in accordance with the provisions of sections 31-71a to 31-7H, inclusive, or fails to compensate an employee in accordance with section 31-76k or where an employee or a labor organization representing an employee institutes an action to enforce an arbitration award which requires an employer to make an employee whole or to make payments to an employee welfare fund, such employee or labor organization may recover, in a civil action, twice the full amount of such wages, with costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court, and any agreement between him and his employer for payment of wages other than as specified in said sections shall be no defense to such action. The Labor Commissioner may collect the full amount of any such unpaid wages, payments due to an employee welfare fund or such arbitration award, as well as interest calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 31-265 from the date the wages or payment should have been received, had payment been made in a timely manner. In addition, the Labor Commissioner may bring any legal action necessary to recover twice the full amount of unpaid wages, payments due to an employee welfare fund or arbitration award, and the employer shall be required to pay the costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court. The commissioner shall distribute any wages, arbitration awards or payments due to an employee welfare fund collected pursuant to this section to the appropriate person.”

       Although both Hartec and Robert Meyers were held liable for Skidmore’s unpaid overtime wages, only Robert Meyers has appealed. Hereafter, we refer to Robert Meyers as the defendant.

       The defendant’s wife, Susan Meyers, is not a party to this litigation.

       General Statutes § 31-58 (f), which defines “employee” for puiposes of, inter alia, the overtime provisions of General Statutes § 31-76b, provides in relevant part: “ ‘Employee’ means any individual employed or permitted to work by an employer but shall not include ... an individual employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity as defined in the regulations of the Labor Commissioner . . . .”

       The trial court awarded Skidmore $14,205.20, which was computed as follows. In accordance with § 31-72, Skidmore was entitled to twice her unpaid wages of $5287.74, plus interest of $2629.82, plus attorney’s fees of $1000. See footnote 1 of this opinion for the text of § 31-72.

       The plaintiff does not challenge the rejection by the trial court of the “piercing the corporate veil” and “alter ego” theories, contained in count three of the plaintiffs complaint, as a basis for imposing personal liability on the defendant.

       General Statutes § 31-71g provides: “Penalty. Any employer or any officer or agent of an employer or any other person authorized by an employer to pay wages who violates any provision of this part may be: (1) Pined not less than two thousand nor more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both for each offense if the total amount of all unpaid wages owed to an employee is more than two thousand dollars; (2) fined not less than one thousand nor more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both for each offense if the total amount of all unpaid wages owed to an employee is more than one thousand dollars but not more than two thousand dollars; (3) fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than six months or both for each offense if the total amount of all unpaid wages owed to an employee is more than five hundred but not more than one thousand dollars; or (4) fined not less than two hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three months or both for each offense if the total amount of all unpaid wages owed to an employee is five hundred dollars or less.”

       Because we conclude that, for purposes of § 31-72, the determination of whether an individual can be considered an employer where a corporate entity exists depends on the individual’s authority to control hours and wages and responsibility for illegally withholding wages, it is unnecessary for us to adopt, as the plaintiff requests, the “economic reality” test used in cases involving the Federal Labor Standards Act to determine if an individual meets the status of employer. The “economic reality” test addresses areas of operational control that are irrelevant to the effectuation of § 31-72.

       “Senator Nancy L. Johnson said in committee hearings, held in 1978 to amend General Statutes § 31-72 to increase the penalties on employers, that the payment of earned wages is a basic gut-level right that should be assured by clear, strong state statutes .... Conn. Joint Standing Committee Hearings, Labor, 1978 Sess., pp. 154-55.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shortt v. New Milford Police Dept., supra, 212 Conn. 309 n.13.

       Skidmore later assumed this duty.

       Although the defendant alleged in his answer that Skidmore was a nonexempt salaried employee who was employed in a “bona fide executive, administrative and professional capacity,” his brief only addresses the administrative capacity exemption. We, therefore, decline to review the executive and professional exemptions because they are not adequately briefed. “Claimed errors not adequately briefed and not fully developed will not be considered by this court. See Practice Book § [4064C]; Liscio v. Liscio, 204 Conn. 502, 507, 528 A.2d 1143 (1987); Petrizzo v. Commercial Contractors Corporations, 152 Conn. 491, 496, 208 A.2d 748 (1965).” State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 742, 595 A.2d 322 (1991).

       The definition of employee provided in § 31-58 (f) is used because General Statutes § 31-76b, which provides the definitions used in the overtime pay provisions, states that the term employee as used in those provisions “means employee as defined in section 31-58.”

       The parties do not dispute the applicability of subsections (d) and (e) of § 31-60-15 and confine their arguments to subsections (a) (1), (b) and (c) (2) of that regulation.

       General Statutes § 31-66 provides: “Employers’ records. Orders to be posted. Each employer subject to the provisions of this part, unless exempted by regulation issued by the commissioner or as hereinafter provided, shall keep at the place of employment for a period of three years a true and accurate record of the hours worked by, and the wages paid by him to, each employee, as required by the applicable regulations issued by the Labor Commissioner, and shall furnish to the commissioner or his authorized representative, upon demand, a sworn statement of the same provided if the place of employment is designed primarily as an establishment for the housing and use of coin-operated service or vending machines, such records may be kept by the employer in some location approved by the commissioner other than at the place of employment. Such records shall be open to inspection by the commissioner or his authorized representative at any reasonable time. Each employer subject to this part or to a minimum fair wage order shall keep a copy of such order and the regulations issued by the Labor Commissioner posted at the place of employment where it can be read easily by the employees. Employers shall be furnished copies of orders and regulations on request, without charge.”

       Section 31-60-12 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides in pertinent part: “Records, (a) For the purpose of this regulation, ‘true and accurate records’ means accurate legible records for each employee showing: (1) His name; (2) his home address; (3) the occupation in which he is employed; (4) the total daily and total weekly hours worked, showing the beginning and ending time of each work period, computed to the nearest unit of fifteen minutes; (5) his total hourly, daily or weekly basic wage; (6) his overtime wage as a separate item from his basic wage; (7) additions to or deductions from his wages each pay period; (8) his total wages paid each pay period; (9) such other records as are stipulated in accordance with sections 31-60-1 through 31-60-16; (10) working certificates for minor employees (sixteen to eighteen years). True and accurate records shall be maintained and retained at the place of employment for a period of three years for each employee. ...”

       Because we agree with the plaintiff that the record contains evidence of bad faith on the part of the defendant, we need not reach the plaintiff’s contention that an award of double damages pursuant to § 31-72 does not require such evidence.

       Neither party contends that Sansone requires that the trial court make a specific finding of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in order to award double damages. Rather, both parties agree that an award of double damages can be based on evidence of such conduct contained in the record. Accordingly, in (he present case, the parties dispute the sufficiency of the evidence demonstrating bad faith.

       The defendant did not request an articulation of the trial court’s decision to award the plaintiff double damages. Although it is the “ ‘responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review’ Connecticut National Bank v. Giacomi, 242 Conn. 17, 73, 699 A.2d 101 (1997); Practice Book § 4007; we note that the trial court should provide a basis for its exercise of discretion to award double damages.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: BORDEN, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    THOMAS G. AHNEMAN v. SUSAN A. AHNEMAN
    (SC 15621)
    Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Palmer and Peters, Js.
    Argued September 25, 1997
    officially released January 20, 1998

      Brenden P. Leydon, for the appellant (defendant).

      Catherine P. Whelan, for the appehee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

BORDEN, J.

The issues in this certified appeal are: (1) whether the AppeUate Court improperly dismissed, for lack of a final judgment, that portion of the defendant’s appeal challenging the trial court’s refusal to consider certain of the defendant’s postjudgment motions; and (2) whether the trial court had the discretion to refuse to consider those motions. Following our grant of certification, the defendant, Susan A. Ahneman, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing, for lack of a final judgment, her second amended appeal (amended appeal) to that court. In her original appeal, the defendant challenged an order of the trial court that modified the alimony and support provisions of the previous judgment dissolving the marriage between her and the plaintiff, Thomas G. Ahneman. In her amended appeal, the defendant sought to challenge the trial court’s refusal to consider her subsequently filed motions concerning financial issues while her original appeal was pending.

The defendant claims that the Appellate Court’s dismissal of her amended appeal for lack of a final judgment was improper because the trial court’s refusal to consider her motions constituted a final judgment and was improper. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing the defendant’s amended appeal, and remand the case to the Appellate Court with direction to remand it to the trial court for prompt consideration of the motions at issue.

The material facts and procedural history are undisputed. On July 5, 1995, the trial court, Novack, J., rendered a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. The trial court incorporated as part of its dissolution decree the parties’ separation agreement concerning alimony, custody, child support, the division of property, and other matters related to the dissolution. The terms of the agreement incorporated into the judgment provided, inter alia, that the plaintiff would pay the defendant $2500 per month in unallocated alimony and child support until October 31, 2000, and thereafter $2600 per month through February 1, 2006. In addition, the judgment obligated the plaintiff: to pay the defendant $300 per month toward certain debts; to pay the cost of their children’s parochial school tuition; to maintain $400,000 of life insurance coverage for the benefit of the children; to maintain health insurance for the benefit of the children; to provide the defendant with a description of the children’s health insurance; and to share equally with the defendant the cost of any medical treatment of the children not covered by insurance. Additionally, the judgment allocated to each party a 50 percent interest in the marital residence.

On November 13,1995, the plaintiff moved for modification of his unallocated alimony and child support obligation claiming that his income had decreased substantially because of a change in his employment. The trial court, Harrigan, J., considered the plaintiffs motion on March 13, 14 and 27, 1996. On June 7, 1996, the trial court granted the motion, reducing the plaintiffs alimony and child support obligation to $220 per week. On June 21, 1996, the defendant appealed from that order to the Appellate Court. The issues raised in that appeal are not presently before us.

During the three weeks following the June 7, 1996 order, the defendant filed a number of motions in the trial court. These motions concerned both financial and nonfinancial issues. On June 17, 1996, the defendant filed a motion for modification of the original July 5, 1995 dissolution judgment seeking an increase in her interest in the marital residence beyond the 50 percent that originally had been awarded, seeking permission to discontinue the children’s attendance at parochial school, and, as amended on June 28, 1996, seeking a restoration of her maiden name. On June 19, 1996, the defendant moved to have the plaintiff held in contempt for his alleged failure to pay her the $300 per month toward the marital debts, as required by the original dissolution judgment. On June 21, 1996, the defendant moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to pay the children’s medical bills within one month of his receipt of them, imposing a monetary sanction of $100 per bill in the event of his failure to pay within one month, and requiring payment of one half of the counseling bills for one of the children. On that same day, the defendant moved to have the plaintiff held in contempt for his alleged failure: to maintain and to notify her of changes in health insurance policies for the children; to maintain the life insurance coverage required by the dissolution judgment; and to pay past due medical expenses of the children. Also on June 21, 1996, the defendant moved the court to hold the plaintiff in contempt for his alleged: refusal to allow the children to call her during his visitations; failure to notify her promptly that their daughter had received emergency room treatment during his visitation; failure to allow the children to attend extracurricular activities during his visitation; failure to complete the parenting education program; practice of returning the children late from visitations; and disparagement of the defendant while in the presence of the children. Finally, on that same day, the defendant moved for an order clarifying the starting and ending times of the plaintiffs visitations with the children.

At short calendar on July 15, 1996, the trial court rendered an oral decision declining to consider any of the defendant’s motions filed subsequent to the June 7, 1996 judgment that is the subject of the original appeal. On July 19, 1996, the defendant moved for reconsideration of that decision and for reargument on the question of whether the court should entertain her motions. On October 15, 1996, the court held reargument on that question, and orally announced its decision to consider the defendant’s motions concerning nonfinancial issues in the case, but refusing to consider any motions dealing with financial issues.

On October 21, 1996, the defendant amended her appeal to include a claim challenging the trial court’s refusal to consider her motions concerning financial issues. On October 25, 1996, the defendant filed in the Appellate Court, pursuant to Practice Book § 4053, a motion for review of the trial court’s refusal to consider her motions. On December 18,1996, the Appellate Court dismissed the motion for review. Subsequently, citing State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983), the Appellate Court, sua sponte, ordered the defendant to show cause why her amended appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment. The Appellate Court subsequently dismissed the defendant’s amended appeal. This certified appeal followed.

I

The defendant claims that the trial court’s refusal to consider her motions constituted a final judgment for purposes of appeal, and that, therefore, the Appellate Court improperly dismissed her amended appeal. We agree.

It is well established that “[a]ppeais are permitted only from final judgments.” State v. Seravalli, 189 Conn. 201, 204, 455 A.2d 852, cert. dismissed, 461 U.S. 920, 103 S. Ct. 2076, 77 L. Ed. 2d 291 (1983). “Because [appellate] jurisdiction over appeals, both criminal and civil, is prescribed by statute, [appellate courts] must always determine the threshold question of whether the appeal is taken from a final judgment before considering the merits of the claim.” State v. Curcio, supra, 191 Conn. 30. The Appellate Court, therefore, properly inquired whether there was a lack of a final judgment that deprived it of jurisdiction over the appeal of the trial court’s refusal to consider the defendant’s motions. We conclude, however, contrary to the Appellate Court, that the trial court’s refusal to consider the defendant’s postjudgment motions on financial issues constituted a final judgment.

It is well established that a ruling by a trial court regarding financial issues in a marital dissolution case— whether it be a pendente lite ruling, a ruling issued in conjunction with a final dissolution judgment or a decision regarding a postjudgment motion — is a final judgment for purposes of appeal. See, e.g., Serrano v. Serrano, 213 Conn. 1, 566 A.2d 413 (1989) (reviewing trial court ruling regarding allocation of federal income tax dependent child exemption as part of dissolution judgment); Darak v. Darak, 210 Conn. 462, 556 A.2d 145 (1989) (reviewing trial court’s denial of postjudgment motion to modify award of alimony and child support); Hiss v. Hiss, 135 Conn. 333, 336, 64 A.2d 173 (1949) (“order for the payment of support pendente lite . . . was a final judgment within the appeal statute”). It is also well established that a trial court ruling on a motion for contempt in a marital dissolution action is a final judgment for purposes of appeal. See, e.g., Cogan v. Cogan, 186 Conn. 592, 442 A.2d 1342 (1982) (reviewing denial of motion that plaintiff be adjudged in contempt for failure to make alimony payments in accordance with dissolution judgment); Smith v. Smith, 151 Conn. 292, 296, 197 A.2d 65 (1964) (reviewing contempt ruling for failure of defendant to pay alimony pendente lite). Thus, if the trial court formally had denied the defendant’s motions concerning financial issues, that decision would have constituted a final judgment.

The trial court’s decision not to consider the defendant’s motions was the functional equivalent of a denial of those motions. Like a formal denial, the effect of the court’s decision refusing to consider the defendant’s motions during the pendency of the appeal was to foreclose the possibility of relief from the court on those issues, unless and until the resolution of the appeal required further proceedings. Indeed, the refusal to consider a motion is more deserving of appellate review than a formal denial, because the defendant not only has been denied relief; she has been denied the opportunity even to persuade the trial court that she is entitled to that relief. Moreover, at least with respect to a legitimate motion to modify financial aspects of a dissolution judgment, there is an unacceptable possibility that any harm suffered as a result of the court’s refusal to consider the motion will never be remediable. The original motion in this case was engendered by a change in the factual circumstances, and further changes may again have occurred by the time the court finally considers the defendant’s motions after the appeal is decided.

II

We next consider whether the trial court had the discretion to refuse to consider the defendant’s post-judgment motions concerning financial issues. We consider this issue because it is inextricably linked to the nature of our remand.

Normally, when we conclude that the Appellate Court has improperly failed to reach an issue concerning a decision by the trial court, we remand the case to that court for consideration of the merits of that issue. Under our supervisory powers over proceedings on appeal, however, this court also has the authority to address the subject of the trial court’s decision. See Practice Book § 4183; Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166, 188-89, 627 A.2d 414 (1993) (invoking supervisory powers under § 4183 to address merits of defendant’s claim after concluding that Appellate Court should have reached issue).

In the present case, our review of the propriety of the trial court’s decision is warranted because a remand to the Appellate Court for review in the normal fashion likely would engender significant confusion. On the one hand, we have characterized the decision of the trial court as the functional equivalent of a formal denial of the motions at issue here, which suggests that, on remand, the Appellate Court should perform its function in accordance with its normal scope of review. See, e.g., Crowley v. Crowley, 46 Conn. App. 87, 90, 699 A.2d 1029 (1997) (“orders [of trial court in domestic relations case] will not be reversed unless its findings have no reasonable basis in fact or it has abused its discretion, or unless, in the exercise of such discretion, it applies the wrong standard of law”). On the other hand, however, because the trial court has not rendered any factual or legal conclusions regarding the defendant’s motions, the Appellate Court cannot perform that review. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, we will review the propriety of the trial court’s decision ourselves.

In addition, invoking our supervisory powers to reach the merits of the claim concerning the decision of the trial court in the present case “will avoid the necessity of inordinate further delay”; O’Bymachow v. O’Bymachow, 10 Conn. App. 76, 79, 521 A.2d 599, cert. denied, 205 Conn. 808, 532 A.2d 76 (1987); in the defendant’s attempt to obtain consideration of her motions concerning financial issues. Finally, although the propriety of the trial court’s decision was not certified for appeal, both parties have addressed the question in their briefs and at oral argument.

Turning to the merits, we agree with the defendant’s assertion that the trial court’s decision to refuse to consider her motions on financial issues was improper. The simple reason for that conclusion is that the trial court lacked authority to refuse to consider the defendant’s motions.

The fact that the defendant had filed an appeal of the trial court’s June 7, 1996 ruling on child support and alimony did not deprive the court of continuing jurisdiction over the financial issues. It is well established that a trial court maintains jurisdiction over an action subsequent to the filing of an appeal. Practice Book § 4006 (“[sjhould the trial court, subsequent to the filing of the appeal, make a decision which the appellant desires to have reviewed, the appellant shall file an amended appeal form in the trial court”); Mulholland v. Mulholland, 229 Conn. 643, 653, 643 A.2d 246 (1994) (upholding judgment of contempt for failure to fulfill, during pendency of appeal, obligations of child support order that had been reversed on appeal); Yontef v. Yontef 185 Conn. 275, 293-94, 440 A.2d 899 (1981) (approving entry of interim orders pending appeal of judgments concerning custody of children in dissolution cases). Moreover, atrial court’s postappeal jurisdiction persists regardless of any degree of substantive connection between the postappeal motion and the issue on appeal. See Clover Farms, Inc. v. Kielwasser, 134 Conn. 622, 623, 59 A.2d 550 (1948) (“trial court had authority to open the judgment . . . and the fact that an appeal had been filed did not prevent such action”); see also O’Bymachow v. O’Bymachow, supra, 10 Conn. App. 77 (“[i]t has long been settled law that the power of the trial court to open or modify its judgment is not affected by the fact that an appeal from that judgment is pending”). The trial court’s jurisdiction over the defendant’s motions concerning financial issues continued, therefore, regardless of the fact that such issues also were involved in the defendant’s pending appeal of the court’s June 7, 1996 ruling.

The plaintiff contends, however, that the trial court’s refusal was justified on the ground of efficiency in light of the alleged connection between the issues on appeal and the subject of the defendant’s motions. This claim is without merit. Although it may be “efficient” for a trial court not to expend judicial resources on a question that a pending appeal may subsequently render moot, that kind of efficiency has never been considered a justification for a trial court’s refusal to consider a question. If anything, considerations of judicial efficiency point in the opposite direction, toward recognizing that a trial court may render moot an appeal by opening, and altering, the judgment that gave rise to it. See Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 224 Conn. 106, 109, 616 A.2d 798 (1992) (dismissing as moot appeal from trial court judgment because judgment had been replaced by second judgment favorable to appellant after trial court had opened first judgment).

More fundamentally, basic principles of jurisprudence refute the plaintiffs proposition that a trial court has discretion, based on notions of judicial efficiency, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to consider certain motions. Courts are in the business of ruling on litigants’ contentions, and they generally operate under the “rule essential to the efficient administration of justice, that where a court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject-matter . . . and . . . obtains jurisdiction of the person, it becomes its . . . duty to determine every question which may arise in the cause . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Amato v. Erskine, 100 Conn. 497, 499, 123 A. 836 (1924). This general rule is particularly important in the context of marital dissolution cases because of the likelihood of continuing changes in the parties’ circumstances requiring continuing dispute resolution by the court.

We recognize that exceptions to the general rule that a trial court must consider and decide on a reasonably prompt basis all motions properly placed before it may exist in an extreme, compelling situation. For example, we do not rule out the possibility that a trial court may have discretion to refuse to entertain or decide motions in order to prevent harassing or vexatious litigation. See In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984) (affirming, in substantial part, District Court’s order barring filings by defendant without first obtaining leave of court, vacating order in minor respect, and entering preliminary injunction barring his filings in Court of Appeals without leave of court), aff’d on remand, 763 F.2d 140 (2d Cir. 1985) (affirming District Court’s amended order), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1061, 106 S. Ct. 807, 88 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1986), motions denied, 795 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1986) (injunction as to filings in Court of Appeals made permanent), modified sub nom. Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 876 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1989) (granting leave to appeal where defendant had standing), motions denied sub nom. In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 1993) (seeking disclosure of identity of judges ruling on leave to file applications). Likewise, there may be other circumstances in which a trial court properly could refuse to consider certain motions.

Although the defendant filed numerous motions, this record does not support the conclusion that any circumstances existed that justified such a refusal. Indeed, the plaintiff does not allege any. We conclude, therefore, that the decision of the trial court refusing to consider motions concerning financial issues during the pendency of the defendant’s appeal of the court’s order of June 7, 1996, was improper.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to remand it to the trial court for prompt resolution of the defendant’s motions regarding financial issues.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss that portion of the defendant’s appeal regarding claimed inaction by the trial court?” Ahneman v. Ahneman, 240 Conn. 911, 689 A.2d 473 (1997). Counsel for both parties, however, briefed and argued not only this limited issue, but also the closely related issue of the propriety of the trial court’s refusal to consider the defendant’s motions. As explained in part II of this opinion, after review of the case, we have decided to consider the latter issue.

       In the June 7, 1996 decision, the trial court also denied the defendant’s motion for contempt arising out of the plaintiffs alleged failure to pay the requisite child support and alimony, and his alleged failure to complete the parenting education class ordered by the court. In addition, the trial court denied motions by both the plaintiff and the defendant for orders clarifying aspects of the plaintiffs visitation rights. These decisions were not appealed.

       On July 2, 1996, the plaintiff, citing a substantial change in his financial circumstances, moved for modification of his obligations concerning the parochial school tuition, health insurance, life insurance and unreimbursed medical expenses.

       On June 25,1996, the plaintiff filed a virtually identical motion for an order clarifying the starting and ending times of his visitations with the children.

       The following colloquy took place at the July 15, 1996 short calendar hearing:
      “Ms. Whelan [Plaintiffs Counsel]: Just by way of background, Your Honor issued a memorandum of decision in connection with my client’s motion for modification and Your Honor ruled in my client’s favor. Your Honor’s decision has been appealed, and the reason I point that out to Your Honor is that the vast majority of the motions which are currently pending on the short calendar today tie into Your Honor’s memorandum of decision, i.e., whether or not a modification was in order. . . .
      “Therefore, I don’t know that it would be a proper use of the court’s time to hear these motions while the appeal is pending. . . .
      “Mr. Leydon [Defendant’s Counsel]: Your Honor, Brenden Leydon for the defendant, Susan Ahneman. I didn’t realize we were getting into substance, I thought we were going to get a date certain to have all these motions heard.
      “The Court: If you have appealed me — •
      “Mr. Leydon: Well, the appeal, Your Honor, was due to modification of alimony and child support, which none of these motions are directly about. They are about separate elements of the divorce decree which have nothing to do with that.
      “Ms. Whelan: Your Honor, I would take issue with that. For example, one of the underlying issues is whether or not my client is in contempt of court for failure to maintain life insurance which, obviously, he doesn’t have the financial resources, because he sustained a substantial change in financial circumstances, as Your Honor so found, then certainly I believe that that would be tied in. There are other issues relating to the payment of the children’s schooling, education, again that’s a financial issue which Your Honor addressed in your memorandum of decision, which is now on appeal.
      “The Court: Well, I don’t see how you can piecemeal it, counsel. What I found after trial on the merits, all these issues could have been brought up at the time of the hearing. As far as I am concerned that’s the law of the case, you are on appeal. It seems to me anything you have to file goes to the Appellate Court who may send it down to me. I am not going to assign a date certain.”

       The court subsequently scheduled a hearing on December 18, 1996, for motions concerning nonfinancial issues.

       At the October 15, 1996 hearing, the trial court stated: “As far as the money issues are concerned, it was my opinion that that was the law of the case that was established by the contested hearing we had over the modification and the contempt. That ruling, I think, would cover these other money issues. As far as visitation or change of name and things of that nature perhaps that’s a situation, and frankly I thought they were all money issues, that counsel were raising, all the money issues, that I think should have been raised in your hearing, your contested hearings. It was the piecemeal of the money motions I was objecting to. The other issues regarding nonmonetary aspects of your judgment I think are something that can be addressed separately. . . .
      “I will not hear anything on monetary aspects because I think the law of the case was established as a result of the earlier hearing. It’s now on appeal. The nonmonetary aspects I will set down for a hearing . . . .”

       The October 21, 1996 amendment to the appeal was the defendant’s second amendment to the appeal. On September 30, 1996, the defendant had amended her appeal to add a claim challenging the trial court’s granting, on September 23, 1996, of the plaintiffs June 27, 1996 motion for attorney’s fees for defense of the appeal.

       Practice Book § 4053 provides in relevant part: “The [Appellate Court] may, on written motion for review stating the grounds for the relief sought, modify or vacate . . . any order relating to the perfecting of the record for an appeal or the procedure of prosecuting or defending against the appeal, or any order made by the trial court concerning a stay of execution in a case on appeal. . . .”

       Although the Appellate Court did not issue a formal opinion explaining the basis for its dismissal of the amended appeal, it is evident from that court’s reference to Curcio in its sua sponte show cause order, and the parties do not dispute, that the lack of a final judgment for purposes of appeal was the basis for its judgment of dismissal.

       On March 24, 1997, the defendant filed a motion to transfer her entire appeal from the Appellate Court to this court. This court denied that motion on April 8, 1997.

       The defendant also claims that, pursuant to Practice Book § 4006, an amendment to an appeal that arises from postjudgment proceedings in the trial court need not meet the finality requirements. The defendant cites the following in support of her claim: Hiss v. Hiss, 135 Conn. 333, 335, 64 A.2d 173 (1949) (“[wjhere [postjudgment] motions are made after the judgment upon the main issue has been rendered, rulings upon them fall within the scope of the appeal from that judgment; simplicity and expedition justifies that procedure whether or not such rulings would themselves constitute final judgments which would be the basis of an appeal”); Valluzzo v. Valluzzo, 103 Conn. 265, 266, 130 A. 126 (1925) (“The denial of her motions would not constitute such a final judgment as would of itself form the basis of an appeal. . . . But supplemental proceedings sometimes follow upon a final judgment which may be brought within the scope of the appeal taken from it . . . .” [Citation omitted.]); W. Horton & S. Cormier, Rules of Appellate Procedure (1997 Ed.) § 4006, authors’ comments, p. 67 (“[r]ulings to which this section applies do not have to be themselves final judgments,” citing Young v. Polish Loan & Industrial Corp., 126 Conn. 714, 715, 11 A.2d 395 [1940]). In view of our conclusion that the trial court’s refusal to hear the plaintiffs motion was a final judgment for purposes of appeal, we need not consider the effect, if any, of § 4006 nor the cases cited by the defendant on the finality requirement.

       General Statutes § 52-263 provides in relevant part: “Upon the trial of all matters of fact in any cause or action in the Superior Court, whether to the court or jury, or before any judge thereof when the jurisdiction of any action or proceeding is vested in him, if either party is aggrieved by the decision of the court or judge upon any question or questions of law arising in the trial ... he may appeal to the court having jurisdiction from the final judgment of the court or of such judge . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

        In addition, General Statutes § 51-197a (a) provides in relevant part: “Appeals from final judgments or actions of the Superior Court shall be taken to the Appellate Court . . . (Emphasis added.)

       Although neither party has cited Tough v. Ives, 159 Conn. 605, 268 A.2d 371 (1970), we discuss it briefly in order to avoid confusion. In Tough, this court dismissed, for lack of a final judgment, an appeal of a trial court’s failure — twenty-two months after the jury verdict — to render a judgment on the verdict or to rule on a motion to set it aside. Id., 606. Tough is distinguishable from the present case.
      In the present case, the trial court explicitly and on the record rendered an a priori decision — -without even acquainting itself with the subject of the motions — that it would “not hear anything on monetary aspects [of the case]” until resolution of the appeal. In contrast, in Tough we were presented merely with an inordinate delay in a trial court’s decision regarding a motion. Tough v. Ives, supra, 159 Conn. 606. Although there is a similarity between the two circumstances, in that in both, the trial court’s inaction affects the movant’s ability to obtain relief, the rendering by the trial court of an explicit, a priori decision not to consider motions makes the situation in this case more akin to a formal denial than was the case in Tough. Moreover, Practice Book § 211A, adopted after our decision in Tough, provides a remedy for inordinate delay in a trial court’s decision on a short calendar motion.

       The defendant contends that the trial court’s decision violated the due process and equal protection provisions of the federal and state constitutions. Because, however, we decide this issue on the basis of case law and rules of practice concerning trial court procedure, we need not consider the defendant’s constitutional arguments.


text:
    RICHARD D. LAUER ET AL. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF REDDING ET AL.
    (SC 15680)
    Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Berdon, Norcott and McDonald, Js.

      Argued October 30, 1997
    officially released January 20, 1998

      Nancy Burton, for the appellant (named plaintiff).

      Michael N. LaVelle, for the appellee (named defendant).

      Helen L. McGonigle, for the appellees (defendant Luciano Angeloni et al.).

       Superseded. See Lauer v. Zoning Commission, 246 Conn. 251, 716 A.2d 840 (1998).

   Opinion

NORCOTT, J.

The certified issue in this appeal is: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court’s judgment was untimely under General Statutes § 51-1831), and that the untimeliness was not waived?” Lauer v. Zoning Commission, 241 Conn. 902, 903, 693 A.2d 304 (1997). The named plaintiff, Richard D. Lauer, took an administrative appeal from a decision by the named defendant, the zoning commission of the town of Redding (commission), granting a special permit to the defendant property owners, Luciano and Debra Angeloni. The trial court issued an order sustaining the appeal 119 days after the trial on the matter had been completed. Two weeks later, 143 days after the completion of the trial, the trial court issued an eighteen page memorandum of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its previous order. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court from that decision. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because its judgment was rendered beyond the 120 day time limitation set forth in § 51-183b. Lauer v. Zoning Commission, 44 Conn. App. 542, 545, 690 A.2d 893 (1997). The Appellate Court reasoned that for purposes of § 51-183b, a judgment is not rendered until the trial court sets forth the legal and factual basis for its ultimate conclusions in accordance with Practice Book § 334A. Id. We disagree and reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The facts and procedural history are set forth in the decision of the Appellate Court. “The Angelonis obtained a special permit in 1989 to operate a riding academy in a residential zone in Redding. The 1989 permit allowed the owners to board a maximum of twenty-five horses at the academy. On October 23,1991, the owners applied to the commission to amend the special permit, seeking, inter alia, to increase the number of horses from twenty-five to forty. The commission granted the special permit on January 22, 1992. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the granting of the special permit. On April 3, 1995, 119 days after the trial was completed, the trial court issued the following order: ‘The administrative appeal is sustained. A memorandum will follow.’ On April 10,1995, the owners moved to set aside the order and for a mistrial, asserting that no judgment was rendered within the 120 day period set forth in General Statutes § 51-183b. The trial court did not rule on the motion, but, instead, issued its memorandum of decision 143 days after the completion of the trial.” Lauer v. Zoning Commission, supra, 44 Conn. App. 543-44.

“In past cases interpreting § 51-183b and its predecessors, we have held that the defect in a late judgment is that it implicates the trial court’s power to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the parties before it.” Waterman v. United Caribbean, Inc., 215 Conn. 688, 692, 577 A.2d 1047 (1990); Whitaker v. Cannon Mills Co., 132 Conn. 434, 438, 45 A.2d 120 (1945); Foley v. Douglas & Bro., Inc., 121 Conn. 377, 380, 185 A. 70 (1936). “A delay in decision beyond that authorized by the statute makes the decision voidable and, absent waiver, requires a new trial.” Frank v. Streeter, 192 Conn. 601, 603, 472 A.2d 1281 (1984). In the present case, however, an order was issued within the mandatory 120 day period. Therefore, we must decide whether the order of the trial court satisfied the requirements of § 51-183b.

The ultimate issue is one of statutory construction. We must determine whether the order of the trial court constituted a “judgment” within the meaning of § 51-183b, or whether, as the Appellate Court concluded, a judgment is not rendered for purposes of § 51-183b unless and until the trial court explains the reasons for its ruling in accordance with Practice Book § 334A.

Our analysis is guided by well established principles of statutory construction. “ ‘Statutory construction is a question of law and therefore our review is plenary.’ ” State v. Burns, 236 Conn. 18, 22, 670 A.2d 851 (1996). We commence our analysis with settled principles of statutory construction designed to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. “ ‘[W]e look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, [and] to the legislative policy it was designed to implement ....’” United Illuminating Co. v. New Haven, 240 Conn. 422, 431, 692 A.2d 742 (1997).

We begin with the language of the statute. Section 51-183b provides in relevant part that “[a]ny judge of the Superior Court. . . shall render judgment not later than one hundred and twenty days from the completion date of the trial . . . .” The language of the statute does not give any specific direction as to what the court must do to “render judgment.” Because the term “render judgment” is undefined and the language of the statute does not illuminate our inquiry, it is necessary to look to other sources for its definition.

“‘If a statute . . . does not sufficiently define a term, it is appropriate to look to the common understanding of the term as expressed in a dictionary.’ ” State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 771, 695 A.2d 525 (1997). A “rendition of judgment” is “effected when [the] trial court in open court declares the decision of the law upon the matters at issue . . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). Furthermore, a “judgment” is the “final decision of the court resolving the dispute and determining the rights and obligations of the parties. . . .” Id. The plaintiff argues that the order of the trial court meets these requirements because the decree resolved the dispute and determined the appeal in his favor. We agree.

Our conclusion is further supported by the legislative purpose of § 51-183b. Section 51-183b was amended “in order to reduce delay and its attendant costs, [and] imposes time limits on the power of a trial judge to render judgment in a civil case. The origin of the section may be traced to chapter 3 of the Public Acts of 1879. Spelke v. Shaw, 117 Conn. 639, 643, 169 A. 787 (1933).” Waterman v. United Caribbean, Inc., supra, 215 Conn. 691. The 1981 amendment to § 51-183b shortened the time period allowed forjudges to render judgment from eight months to 120 days from the completion of the trial. See Public Acts 1981, No. 81-52.

The general purpose of § 51-183b, therefore, is to reduce delay in the trial courts. This purpose would be frustrated by the requirement that a memorandum of decision be issued within 120 days after completion of trial, a requirement beyond those enumerated by the rules of practice. Moreover, it would appear to be unnecessary first, because a memorandum of decision is most helpful when a case is appealed, many cases are never appealed. Second, the demand for a memorandum of decision in all cases where judgment is rendered, beyond what is required by the rules of practice, would further tax the already overburdened trial courts. A trial judge would feel compelled to deliver a memorandum of decision in all cases, even those cases in which an elaborate explanation is not warranted because of the simplicity of the issues, or for other reasons, which could delay other memoranda that truly need to be written. Third, the threat of overloading the docket with new trials, because the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the parties when a judgment had been rendered but when a memorandum of decision had not been issued, would also frustrate the utility of the statute. The purpose of the statute, therefore, would be hampered by the Appellate Court’s decision.

Although we recognize the concern of the Appellate Court, that appellate rights might be compromised, we note that there are provisions in the appellate procedure section of the rules of practice that ameliorate this concern. For example, an appellant may file a motion for an extension of time to appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 4040, a motion for articulation or for rectification pursuant to Practice Book § 4051, or a motion to compel the trial judge to file a memorandum of decision under Practice Book § 4059. Therefore, we believe there are sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of potential appellants if this situation should reoccur.

Notwithstanding, the defendants assert that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the term “judgment” as used in § 51-183b is informed by Practice Book § 334A. We decline to read § 334A into the statute to define the term “render judgment,” because the purpose, text and history behind § 334A demonstrate that it performs a different function than that performed by § 51-183b.

The overall purpose of Practice Book § 334A is to instruct the trial court to issue a memorandum of decision to aid the appellate process in those cases in which the judgment is likely to be appealed. This is evidenced by a nearly identical provision in Practice Book § 4059. A memorandum of decision becomes imperative when an appeal is taken because it provides the litigants and the appellate court with the basis of the trial court’s underlying reasoning for its decision.

Furthermore, Practice Book § 334A (a) makes a textual distinction between judgments and decisions; it refers separately to judgments in subdivision (1), and to decisions in subdivisions (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). See footnote 5. The trial court’s judgment is that reflected in the judgment file, and does not usually include all of the details incorporated into a memorandum of decision. Therefore, the judgment is not necessarily always the same document as the court’s memorandum of decision.

Practice Book § 334A, although adopted only in 1994, is a consequence of Practice Book § 4059, its appellate counterpart. Section 4059 was adopted in 1979, when the memorandum of decision replaced the required finding. Prior to 1979, the memorandum of decision was relatively unimportant, and instead an elaborate and complicated system of findings was used to provide a mechanism for appellate review. W. Horton, “The Connecticut Supreme Court — On Becoming Supreme Again,” 52 Conn. B.J. 45, 51 (1978). The process for findings of facts included requests for findings, proposed draft findings, counterfindings, findings, motions to correct the findings, and the bill of exceptions. Id. This system had been in effect since 1830. See State v. Rios, 30 Conn. App. 712, 716, 622 A.2d 618 (1993) (O’Connell, J., concurring); M. Tyler, “The Findings of Facts in Connecticut,” 4 Conn. B.J. 265, 265-67 (1930). This system often caused the trial judge to pore over the transcripts months or years after the trial, causing lengthy delays for taking an appeal. W. Horton, supra, 51.

In 1979, with the adoption of Practice Book § 3060B (now § 4059), the trial judge, if an appeal was taken, was required to state the basis for its decision orally or in a written memorandum of decision. The memorandum of decision, which incorporated all of the factual and legal predicates for the trial court’s decision, supplanted the finding system, expediting appellate review.

Today, the rules of practice still contain separate rules directing the preparation of a judgment file, which evidences the fact that the memorandum of decision is not necessarily the same as the judgment of the trial court. See Practice Book §§ 335 through 338. Furthermore, prior to 1979, the judgment provisions were substantially similar to those of today, but the rules on findings were considerably more detailed and no mention was made of the requirement of a memorandum of decision. See Practice Book, 1963, §§ 260 through 266. Accordingly, it is clear that Practice Book § 334A performs a different function and purpose than that of § 51-183b and should not be read into the statute to define the term “render judgment.”

Although we encourage trial courts to issue memoranda of decision, at the time of rendering judgment, we recognize that under certain circumstances it is permissible to render a judgment and thereafter issue a memorandum of decision. We urge trial courts, however, to be mindful of § 51-183b, and to render judgments accompanied by a memorandum of decision within 120 days after completion of trial.

We decline to review the second issue reached by the Appellate Court, to which we did not grant certification, namely, whether the zoning regulation at issue was directory or mandatory, and consequently we express no opinion as to that issue.

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 § 51-183b provides: “Judgments in civil actions. Time limit. Any judge of the Superior Court and any judge trial referee who has the power to render judgment, who has commenced the trial of any civil cause, shall have power to continue such trial and shall render judgment not later than one hundred and twenty days from the completion date of the trial of such civil cause. The parties may waive the provisions of this section.”

       In addition to the issue certified, the named plaintiff also petitioned for certification as to whether the Appellate Court improperly found the applicable zoning regulation to be directory rather than mandatory. We declined to review this issue.

       Janice Pomazi joined Richard Lauer in his appeal to the trial court. The trial court found, however, that Pomazi was not classically aggrieved because she did not have a specific personal and legal interest in the matter, which directly and adversely had been affected by the commission’s decision. Therefore, she is not a party to this appeal. Hereafter, we refer to Lauer as the plaintiff.

       The defendants claimed: (1) that the judgment of the trial court had been rendered beyond the 120 day period set by statute and, therefore, should be vacated; and (2) that the trial court improperly construed as mandatory § 5.1.2 of the Redding zoning regulations, which required the commission to submit the special permit application to three town agencies. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court because of its conclusion on the timeliness claim, and addressed the issue of whether the zoning regulation was mandatory rather than directory because that issue would arise on retrial.
      The plaintiff sought certification to appeal to this court, and we granted certification to appeal limited to the timeliness of the judgment of the trial court. Lauer v. Zoning Commission, supra, 241 Conn. 903.

       Practice Book § 334A provides in relevant part: “Statement of Decision; When Required
      “(a) Except in small claims actions and as provided in paragraph (b), (1) in judgments in trials to the court in civil and criminal matters, (2) in decisions on aggravating and mitigating factors in capital penalty hearings conducted to the court, (3) in decisions upon motions to dismiss under Sec. 814, (4) in decisions on motions to suppress under Sec. 820, (5) in decisions granting motions to set aside a verdict under Sec. 319, and (6) in any other decisions which constitute a final judgment for purposes of appeal under Gen. Stat. § 52-263 but do not terminate the proceedings, the court shall, either orally or in writing, state its decision on the issues in the matter. The court shall include in its decision its conclusion as to each claim of law raised by the parties and the factual basis therefor. If oral, the decision shall be recorded by a court reporter and, if there is an appeal, the trial judge shall order the decision transcribed and the transcript of the decision shall be signed by the trial judge and filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court. ...”

       Because we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court, which concluded that the judgment of the trial court was untimely, it is unnecessary to determine whether the defendants, by their actions, had waived the untimeliness of that judgment.

       Practice Book § 4040 provides in relevant part: “Extension of Time
      “(a) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the judge who tried the case may, for good cause shown, extend the time limit provided for filing the appeal, except that such extension shall be of no effect if the time within which the appeal must be taken is set by statute and is a time limit that the legislature intended as a limit on the subject matter jurisdiction of the court to which the appeal is taken. In no event shall the trial judge extend the time for filing the appeal to a date which is more than twenty days from the expiration date of the appeal period. . . .”

       Practice Book § 4051 provides in relevant part: “Motion for Rectification; Motion for Articulation . . .
      “The trial court may make such corrections or additions as are necessary for the proper presentation of the issues raised or for the proper presentation of questions reserved. The trial judge shall file the decision on the motion with the appellate clerk. . . .”

       Practice Book § 4059 provides in relevant part: “[Decision by the Trial Court] — How Stated
      “(a) Except in small claims actions and as provided in Sec. 4060, (1) in judgments in trials to the court in civil and criminal matters, (2) in decisions on aggravating and mitigating factors in capital penalty hearings conducted to the court, (3) in decisions upon motions to dismiss under Sec. 814, (4) in decisions on motions to suppress under Sec. 820, and (5) in decisions granting a motion to set aside a verdict under Sec. 320, and (6) in any other decisions which constitute a final judgment for purposes of appeal under Sec. 4000, but do not terminate the proceedings, the court shall, either orally or in writing, state its decision on the issues in the matter. The court shall include in its decision its conclusion as to each claim of law raised by the parties and the factual basis therefor. If oral, the decision shall be recorded by a court reporter and, if there is an appeal, the trial judge shall order the decision transcribed and the transcript of the decision shall be signed by the trial judge and filed in the trial court clerk’s office.
      “(b) If the trial judge fails to file a memorandum of decision or sign a transcript of the oral decision in any case covered by paragraph (a), the appellant may file with the appellate clerk a notice that the decision has not been filed in compliance with paragraph (a). . . . The appellate clerk shall promptly notify the trial judge of the filing of the appeal and the notice. The trial court shall thereafter comply with paragraph (a).”