Wendy V. v. Luis Santiago

Wendy V. · Supreme Court of Connecticut · November 10, 2015 · No. SC 19502; SC 19514

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed as moot appeals concerning whether a trial court was required under General Statutes § 46b-15 to hold a hearing after receiving applications for family violence restraining orders. The court held that the plaintiff had already received the requested hearing and that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness did not apply.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the Court
Rogers, C. J.; Palmer, J.; Zarella, J.; Eveleigh, J.; McDonald, J.; Espinosa, J.; Robinson, J.
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Decision date
November 10, 2015
Docket number
SC 19502; SC 19514
Procedural posture
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's denial, without an initial hearing, of two applications for family-violence restraining orders. During the appeal, the trial court held a hearing on the applications, and the Supreme Court considered whether the appeals remained justiciable.
Standard of review
Mootness is reviewed as a question of justiciability implicating subject matter jurisdiction and is determined as a threshold matter.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Wendy V. v. Luis Santiago
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

family law proceduredomestic violencemootnesssubject matter jurisdictionappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawappellate procedurecivil procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiff's appeals became moot after the trial court held the hearing she sought.
  2. Whether the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness applied to the challenge to denying a hearing on a restraining-order application.
  3. Whether General Statutes § 46b-15 (b) required the trial court to hold a hearing within fourteen days after receiving the application.

Holdings

  1. The appeals were moot because the plaintiff had received the hearing she sought and the court could provide no practical relief through a decision on the merits.
  2. The exception did not apply because the challenged denial of a hearing was not, by its nature, of limited duration and therefore did not satisfy the first requirement of the exception.

Key quotations

The appeals here are moot because no practical relief can be afforded to the plaintiff. Simply put, the relief the plaintiff is requesting is a hearing and she has already received that hearing.
Unless all three requirements are met, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

Factual background

On June 8, 2015, Wendy V. filed an ex parte restraining-order application against Luis Santiago under General Statutes § 46b-15. The trial court denied the application and the plaintiff's request for a full hearing, and it later denied a second application filed on June 19 without a hearing. After the Supreme Court granted certification and directed further proceedings, the trial court held a hearing on both applications on July 7, 2015, but denied them.

Procedural history

The plaintiff filed two restraining-order applications under General Statutes § 46b-15, and the trial court denied both applications and declined to hold a hearing at the time of filing. The plaintiff sought reconsideration, appealed, and obtained certification under General Statutes § 52-265a. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to explain its rulings, after which the trial court held a hearing on July 7, 2015, and denied the applications. The Supreme Court then dismissed the consolidated appeals as moot for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…