Williams v. Williams

── Williams v. Williams ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: June 09, 2026 Author: Moll Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Williams v. Williams EDWARD A. WILLIAMS III, TRUSTEE v. EDNA M. WILLIAMS (AC 49542) Moll, Suarez and Clark, Js. Syllabus The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment of possession for the plaintiff in the plaintiff’s summary process action, and the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff claimed that the appeal was jurisdictionally late pursuant to statute (§ 47a- 35 (b)). Held: The defendant’s appeal was timely pursuant to § 47a-35 (b), as a new five day appeal period with respect to the judgment of possession arose, pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 63-1 (c) (1)) governing the creation of new appeal periods, following the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s timely motion to reargue and reconsider the judgment, and the appeal was filed within that new five day appeal period. Considered April 22—officially released June 9, 2026 Procedural History Summary process action, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court, Thomas, J.; judgment for the plaintiff; thereafter, the court, Thomas, J., denied the defendant’s motion to reargue, and the defendant appealed to this court; subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Andrea L. Truppa, in support of the motion. Edna M. Williams, self-represented, in opposition to the motion. Opinion MOLL, J. In this summary process action, the self- represented defendant, Edna M. Williams, appeals from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Edward A. Williams III, trustee of the Agnes C. Williams Living Trust. On January 21, 2026, the plaintiff moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that  Williams v. Williams it is jurisdictionally late pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35 (b).1 On April 22, 2026, we denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and indicated that an opinion would follow. This opinion sets forth the reasoning for our decision. The following procedural history is relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. In August 2025, the plaintiff commenced this summary process action against the defendant with respect to property located at 465 Old Slocum Road in Hebron (premises). The sole ground alleged by the plaintiff in support