Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2000-2021, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2021 Edition Audita Querela A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 Section 1: Application for Writ of Audita Querela .......................................................... 4 Table 1: Housing Court Case Decisions .................................................................... 8 Table 2: Other Unreported Decisions (Audita Querela) .............................................. 12 Figure 1: Application for Writ of Audita Querela ....................................................... 16 Table 3: Federal Criminal Connecticut Case ............................................................. 19 Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations, Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit [email protected] Audita Querela - 1 These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent only a beginning to research. It is the responsibility of the person doing legal research to come to his or her own conclusions about the authoritativeness, reliability, validity, and currency of any resource cited in this research guide. View our other research guides at http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm This guide links to advance release opinions on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website and to case law hosted on Google Scholar and Harvard’s Case Law Access Project. The online versions are for informational purposes only. References to online legal research databases refer to in-library use of these databases. Remote access is not available. Connecticut Judicial Branch Website Policies and Disclaimers https://www.jud.ct.gov/policies.htm Audita Querela - 2 Introduction A Guide to Resources in the Law Library “Audita querela is a limited and extraordinary legal remedy, based on equity, to inhibit the unconscionable use of a lawful judgment because of matters arising subsequent to the judgment. .The broad issue becomes not comparative inconvenience but comparative hardship. .Courts have a longstanding general power of equity to afford relief against unreasonable conduct even when the activity is otherwise lawful. .Equity is a system of positive jurisprudence founded on established principles and adaptable to new circumstances not remediable at law.” Westfarms Associates v. Kathy-John's, Inc., Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Housing Session, No. SPH 851130901 733 (March 17, 1986) (1986 Conn. Super. Lexis 51) (1986 WL 400555). “The history of the writ of audita querela in Connecticut reveals its limited applicability to civil judgments.” State v. Alegrand, 130 Conn. App. 652, 666, 23 A.3d 1250, 1258 (2011). “. .the writ of audita querela was found to be for use in civil matters when enforcement of a judgment would be contrary to the ends of justice due to matters that have arisen since its rendition.” State v. Cotto, 111 Conn. App. 818, 820, 960 A.2d 1113, 1114 (2008). “The court found that the defendant was not credible and therefore denied the plaintiff’s request to enjoin the eviction. Where the trial court is the arbiter of credibility, this court does not disturb findings on the basis of the credibility of witnesses.” Ruiz v. Gatling, 73 Conn. App. 574, 576, 808 A.2d 710, 711 (2002). “Reference to the writ is made most frequently in cases where payment has been made after the judgment or where subsequent protection of the bankruptcy court has been invoked.” Cohen v. MBA Financial Corp., Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, No. CV 950379585 (July 2, 1999) (25 Conn. L. Rptr. 3) (1999 Conn. Super. Lexis 1770) (1999 WL 509814). “There is no Practice Book rule regarding Writs of Audita Querela. There is no statute authorizing Writs of Audita Querela. Writs of Audita Querela are common law. They precede the first appellate statute in Connecticut passed in 1882. There is no statutory right of appeal from a Writ of Audita Querela. Housing Authority v. Melanson, 23 Conn. App. 519, 521 (1990); Lashgari v. Lashgari, 197 Conn. 200- 201 (fn. 7) (1985).” Wheeler v. Jones, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford- Norwalk at Norwalk, Housing Session, No. SPNO-9412 16795 (July 31, 1995) (1995 Conn. Super. Lexis 2273) (1995 WL 476573). “Because the writ of audita querela is regularly filed in the housing courts of Connecticut, judges there have had occasion to develop the doctrine further.” East Hartford Housing Authority v. Kendrick, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford- New Britain at Hartford, No. SPH 9406-76333 (December 6, 1994) (1994 Conn. Super. Lexis 3393) (1994 WL 740792). Audita Querela - 3 Section 1: Application for Writ of Audita Querela A Guide to Resources in the Law Library SCOPE: Bibliographic resources relating to the application of the writ of audita querela. DEFINITIONS: “The ancient writ of audita querela has been defined as ‘a writ issued to afford a remedy to a defendant against whom judgment had been rendered, but who had new matter in defense (e.g., a release) arising, or at least raisable for the first time, after judgment.’” Ames v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 206 Conn. 16, 20, 536 A.2d 563, 565 (1988). See also: Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed., 2014, p. 156-7; Connecticut Landlord and Tenant Law with Forms, 3rd ed., by Noble Allen, Connecticut Law Tribune, 2021, § 8-8:4. “Audita querela is a remedy granted in favor of one against whom execution has issued on a judgment, the enforcement of which would be contrary to justice because of (1) matters arising subsequent to its rendition, or (2) prior existing defenses that were not available to the judgment debtor in the original action, or (3) the judgment creditor's fraudulent conduct or circumstances over which the judgment debtor had no control. Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d Ed. 1969).” Oakland Heights Mobile Park, Inc. v. Simon, 40 Conn. App. 30, 32, 668 A.2d 737, 739 (1995). “A writ of audita querela is a post-judgment motion designed to postpone or prevent enforcement of a judgment because of equitable considerations. Norman Associates v. Vann, SPH 8302- 17843 (1983) #437, Citing 2 Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure, Sec. 209 (2d Ed.) Audita querela is an extraordinary remedy arising in equity to prevent the unconscionable use of a lawful judgment because of matters arising subsequent to the judgment. Westfarms Associates v. Kathy-John's Inc., SPH 8511- 30901 (1986) #733, Citing Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure, Sec. 209. The issue for the Court is that of comparative hardship.” Lee v. Connor, Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, No. SPWA-8905-07283 (October 17, 1990) (2 Conn. L. Rptr. 716) (1990 Conn. Super. Lexis 1582) (1990 WL 261923). FORMS: Connecticut Summary Process Manual, by Paul J. Marzinotto, Connecticut Law Tribune, 2002. Form 8.14. Writ of Audita Querela, p.98 15A Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms Annotated, Judgments, Thomson West, 2016 (Also available on Westlaw). Audita Querela - 4 § 440. Petition or application – For writ of audita querela – Following levy of execution § 441. Petition or application – For writ of audita querela – Claim paid before entry of judgment § 442. Writ of audita querela – To sheriff or constable – Summons § 443. Writ of audita querela – Statutory form RECORDS & Connecticut Supreme Court Records and Briefs, December 1987. BRIEFS: Ames v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 206 Conn. 16, 536 A.2d 563 (1988). Figure 1. Includes: Application for Writ of Audita Querela (with certification and order) CASES: Orange Palladium, LLC v. Ready, 144 Conn. App. 283, 72 A.3d 1191 (2013). “The defendant further argues that the trial court Once you have improperly denied its application for a writ of audita querela. We identified useful cases, it is decline to review this claim because the precise legal basis for important to update the writ was not distinctly raised at trial.” the cases before you rely on them. TD Banknorth, N.A. v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Updating case law means checking to Connecticut, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 536, 547-548, 37 A.3d 766, see if the cases are 773 (2012). “The defendant also argues that the court erred by still good law. You failing to consider his pleadings as a writ of audita querela. The can contact your defendant did not file a writ of audita querela with the trial court, local law librarian to learn about the and therefore this argument is not properly before us. .A writ tools available to of audita querela is filed with the court that rendered the you to update judgment complained of. .Because the defendant did not cases. distinctly raise the claim of audita querela in the trial court, we need not address here the vitality of that writ in this case.” State v. Alegrand, 130 Conn. App. 652, 669-670, 23 A.3d 1250, 1260 (2011). “There is no Connecticut precedent to authorize the civil writ of audita querela in the criminal context, and we decline to authorize it for the first time here. We recognize that there is a split of authority in the federal courts as to how audita querela might be used; however, we must look to the source of our own jurisdiction as a court system established under the Connecticut constitution and Connecticut statutes. The writ of audita querela remains nothing more than a more specific form of equitable relief and remains a remedy for civil judgments.” Anthony Julian Railroad Construction Company, Inc. v. Mary Ellen Drive Associates, 50 Conn. App. 289, 294-295, 717 A.2d 294, 297 (1998). “This case provides an appropriate context for the application of this common law writ. Here, matters have arisen subsequent to the entry of the judgment that render it inequitable to allow the plaintiff to execute on the defendant's property. These subsequent events consist of a negotiated settlement with two of the defendants in this action after the judgment of strict foreclosure was rendered, along with the release of the mechanic's lien, which is the sole means of recovery that was pleaded by the plaintiff in this action.