V.V. v. V.V., 215 Conn. App. 737 (2022) (aggrievement & standing for appeal)
Officially released October 11, 2022
In Short: It’s a fun case name to say (Vee-vee-vee-vee-vee) but that’s about it. There’s a brief discussion of aggrievement as a requirement to permit a litigant to appeal.
In December 2021, the father of the plaintiff, V.V., a minor child, filed an application for relief from abuse on V.V.’s behalf, alleging that Defendant had attempted to abduct V.V. Judge Murphy granted ex parte relief and, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the application and extended the restraining order for one year.
Thereafter, in a subsequent hearing on Defendant’s subsequent motions, Defendant’s counsel withdrew motions on behalf of Defendant on the record. Judge Goodrow mistakenly entered an order accepting the withdrawal of the underlying restraining order application, rather than Defendant’s motions. The trial court issued a second order on the same day vacating the erroneous order and clarifying that the restraining order remained in effect. Defendant appealed.
The Appellate Court discussed the requirements of standing and aggrievement. The right of appeal is granted to a party who has been aggrieved by the trial court’s orders, per C.G.S. § 52-263. There are two types of aggrievement, classical and statutory, and each can provide standing. For classical aggrievement, the party must demonstrate a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision, as opposed to a general interest shared by the community as a whole, and must establish that this interest has been specifically and injuriously affected by the decision.
The Appellate court determined that Defendant could not be aggrieved by a decision which granted the relief which was sought by her own counsel, namely, withdrawing her own motions, and so lacked standing to appeal the decision. The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
