Ertel v. Demmon
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** PETER H. ERTEL v. THEODORE DEMMON, SR., ET AL. (AC 26104) Bishop, DiPentima and McLachlan, Js. Argued November 18, 2005 officially released January 10, 2006 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, O Keefe, J.) Peter H. Ertel, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff). John-Henry M. Steele, for the appellees (defendants). Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Peter H. Ertel, appeals from the trial court s denial of his motion to open the court s judgment, which did not contain an award of prejudgment interest.1 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Our law makes clear that the opening of a judgment is entirely within the discretion of the trial court. See Moore v. Brancard, 89 Conn. App. 129, 131, 872 A.2d 909 (2005). We note, however, that [a]lthough the opening of a judgment properly rendered is a discretionary act of the court . . . a judgment improperly rendered, as a matter of law, must be set aside. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. St. John, 80 Conn. App. 767, 774, 837 A.2d 841 (2004). In this instance, there is no evidence in the record to support the contention that the court improperly denied the plaintiff s request for prejudgment interest, and the plaintiff has failed to file a motion for articulation to perfect the record. See Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656 57, 688, 757 A.2d 1225, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 918, 763 A.2d 1044 (2000); Practice Book ยง 66-5. Thus, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff s motion to open the judgment. The judgment is affirmed. 1 The plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendants, Theodore Demmon, Sr., Katherine Demmon, the Deregulated Energy Marketing Company and New England Energy, LLC, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud. The plaintiff sought compensatory and treble damages. A default judgment entered against the defendants for failure to appear, but the court did not award prejudgment interest. The plaintiff filed a motion to open the judgment, but the court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
