DOCKET NO: HFH-CV25-6034627-S : SUPERIOR COURT
`
`RUSSELL BABOFF : HOUSING SESSION
`V. : AT HARTFORD
`JILLIAN BABOFF : JULY 9, 2025
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Pursuant to Connecticut Rules of Court § 10-30 and 10-33, Defendant hereby respectfully
`requests the Court dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The
`Superior Court for family matters retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction on the issue the
`
`disposition and possession of the marital residence, Jillian Baboff'v. Russell Baboff, bearing
`
`Docket Number: HHD-FA22-6153878-S and any change of circumstances would be the proper
`subject of a modification in that action. This subsequent summary process action constitutes an
`improper modification and therefore requires dismissal.
`
`I. FACTS
`
`Jillian Baboff, the defendant in this matter, previously brought an action for Dissolution
`of Marriage in the Family Superior Court on March 31, 2022, bearing Docket Number: HHD-
`FA22-6153878-S in which she was the Plaintiff. The Family Superior Court entered a final
`judgment in said action on March 20, 2023. A copy of the final judgment is attached as Exhibit
`A. In the final judgment, the Family Court entered an order concerning the marital residence
`
`located at 105 Hilldale Road, West Hartford, CT, indicating that said property would be retained
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by the Wife, Jillian Baboff. The Order states, “The Wife shall retain the property free of all
`claims from the Husband.” The final Order further states that if Wife is unable to refinance, said
`property shall be sold. Exhibit A, pages 5-6.
`
`Additionally, the Family Superior Court retained jurisdiction over this provision
`concerning the martial home. Exhibit A, page 6. The Family Superior Court made additional
`Orders concerning this property on December 12, 2023 and July 23, 2024, attached here as
`Exhibits B and C respectively. None of said Orders terminated the Defendant’s right to occupy
`the property. The Orders conferred possessory rights upon the Wife. The Husband, after
`dissolution, never had any possessory rights. The property is currently in the process of being
`sold.
`
`This case at hand was brought by means of a summary process action dated May 29,
`2025. In the Complaint, Plaintiff has erroneously stated that “The Defendant’s right to occupy
`the property has terminated.” (Page 1). It should be noted that the parties owned the property as
`joint tenants prior to and after the dissolution. See Exhibit D. The Family Court Orders
`conferred possessory rights upon the Wife. The Agreement of the parties and Order of the Court
`dated July 23, 2024, (Exhibit C) further modified the Judgment and indicated that “[bJoth parties
`shall execute a quit claim deed to the other party to be held in escrow by their respective
`counsel pending the refinance or sale...” Emphasis added. The Agreement further provides “If
`
`Plaintiff is unable to refinance within 60 days, she shall deliver her quit claim deed to the
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Superior Court exercises plenary and general subject matter jurisdiction over legal disputes in
`
`‘family relations matters,” including issues of alimony and child support. Amodio v. Amodio,
`
`247 Conn. 724, 729, 724 A.2d 1084 (1999);
`
`In the matter at hand, The Superior Court has already entered orders concerning
`the marital residence located at 105 Hilldale Road, West Hartford, CT. The Superior Court
`specifically retained jurisdiction over the disposition and possession of this property and a
`dismissal of this matter should be granted. The Wife was given possessory rights of the
`property. The Husband was not given any possessory rights after dissolution. Plaintiff in the
`case at hand is asking this Court to modify the Orders of the Family Superior Court when the
`Family Superior Court has retained jurisdiction over this issue. If the Plaintiff is seeking
`possession of this property over the previously ordered possession to the Wife, the Plaintiff will
`need to return to the Family Court to modify their order. This Court is without subject matter
`jurisdiction to enter a subsequent essential modification of those Orders.
`
`Even if the Superior Court had not retained jurisdiction, “It is well established that
`"[a]lthough the court does not have the authority to modify a property assignment, a court, after
`distributing property, which includes assigning the debts and liabilities of the parties, does have
`the authority to issue postjudgment orders effectuating its judgment. This court has explained the
`difference between postjudgment orders that modify a judgment rather than effectuate it. A
`
`modification is [a] change; an alteration or amendment which introduces new elements into the
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`details, or cancels some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject-matter
`intact.... In contrast, an order effectuating an existing judgment allows the court to protect the
`integrity of its original ruling by ensuring the parties' timely compliance therewith.” (Citations
`
`omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Richman v. Wallman , 172 Conn. App. 616, 620-21,
`
`161 A.3d 666 (2017) ; see also Roberts v. Roberts , 32 Conn. App. 465, 471-72, 629 A.2d 1160
`
`(1993) (order to auction property when judgment required sale of property constituted
`
`effectuation of judgment). Krahel v. Czoch, 186 Conn.App. 22, 198 A.3d 103 (Conn. App.
`
`2018), 39. "We have recognized that it is within the equitable powers of the trial court to fashion
`whatever orders [are] required to protect the integrity of [its original] judgment." (Internal
`
`quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 471, 629 A.2d 1160 ; see also Commissioner v. Youth
`
`Challenge of Greater Hartford, Inc. , 219 Conn. 657, 670, 594 A.2d 958 (1991).”
`
`Krahel v. Czoch, 186 Conn.App. 22, 198 A.3d 103 (Conn. App. 2018), 39.
`
`The Superior Court for family matters has the ability to effectuate it’s Judgment. The
`parties are carrying out the Judgment of the Family Court in the action of selling the property.
`Any modification of those Orders and requested changes to possession of the marital property
`should be directed to the Family Superior Court.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Defendant hereby respectfully requests the Court dismiss this matter for lack of
`
`jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Family Superior Court retained exclusive continuing
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jurisdiction on the issue the disposition and possession of the marital residence, Jillian Baboff v.
`
`Russell Baboff, bearing Docket Number: HHD-FA22-6153878-S, and any change of
`
`circumstances would be the proper subject of a modification in that action. This subsequent
`
`summary process action constitutes an improper modification and therefore requires dismissal.
`
`DEFENDANT,
`
`2 (AU
`Betha y E. Babglt}l\
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`
`36-B West Main Street
`
`Avon, CT 06001
`
`860-677-5885
`
`Juris # 427437
`
`Her Attorneys
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via first class mail and electronic
`delivery on July 9, 2025 to all counsel and pro se parties of record:
`
`Vincent Provenzano, Esq.
`
`MANCINI PROVENZANO & FUTTNER LLC
`37 WEST CENTER STREET
`
`SUITE 208
`
`SOUTHINGTON, CT 06489
`
`Betflany E Bab 1tt
`Commissioner of the Superior Court
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSSELL BABOFF : HOUSING SESSION
`V. : AT HARTFORD
`JILLIAN BABOFF : JULY 9, 2025
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Pursuant to Connecticut Rules of Court § 10-30 and 10-33, Defendant hereby respectfully
`requests the Court dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The
`Superior Court for family matters retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction on the issue the
`
`disposition and possession of the marital residence, Jillian Baboff'v. Russell Baboff, bearing
`
`Docket Number: HHD-FA22-6153878-S and any change of circumstances would be the proper
`subject of a modification in that action. This subsequent summary process action constitutes an
`improper modification and therefore requires dismissal.
`
`I. FACTS
`
`Jillian Baboff, the defendant in this matter, previously brought an action for Dissolution
`of Marriage in the Family Superior Court on March 31, 2022, bearing Docket Number: HHD-
`FA22-6153878-S in which she was the Plaintiff. The Family Superior Court entered a final
`judgment in said action on March 20, 2023. A copy of the final judgment is attached as Exhibit
`A. In the final judgment, the Family Court entered an order concerning the marital residence
`
`located at 105 Hilldale Road, West Hartford, CT, indicating that said property would be retained
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by the Wife, Jillian Baboff. The Order states, “The Wife shall retain the property free of all
`claims from the Husband.” The final Order further states that if Wife is unable to refinance, said
`property shall be sold. Exhibit A, pages 5-6.
`
`Additionally, the Family Superior Court retained jurisdiction over this provision
`concerning the martial home. Exhibit A, page 6. The Family Superior Court made additional
`Orders concerning this property on December 12, 2023 and July 23, 2024, attached here as
`Exhibits B and C respectively. None of said Orders terminated the Defendant’s right to occupy
`the property. The Orders conferred possessory rights upon the Wife. The Husband, after
`dissolution, never had any possessory rights. The property is currently in the process of being
`sold.
`
`This case at hand was brought by means of a summary process action dated May 29,
`2025. In the Complaint, Plaintiff has erroneously stated that “The Defendant’s right to occupy
`the property has terminated.” (Page 1). It should be noted that the parties owned the property as
`joint tenants prior to and after the dissolution. See Exhibit D. The Family Court Orders
`conferred possessory rights upon the Wife. The Agreement of the parties and Order of the Court
`dated July 23, 2024, (Exhibit C) further modified the Judgment and indicated that “[bJoth parties
`shall execute a quit claim deed to the other party to be held in escrow by their respective
`counsel pending the refinance or sale...” Emphasis added. The Agreement further provides “If
`
`Plaintiff is unable to refinance within 60 days, she shall deliver her quit claim deed to the
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Superior Court exercises plenary and general subject matter jurisdiction over legal disputes in
`
`‘family relations matters,” including issues of alimony and child support. Amodio v. Amodio,
`
`247 Conn. 724, 729, 724 A.2d 1084 (1999);
`
`In the matter at hand, The Superior Court has already entered orders concerning
`the marital residence located at 105 Hilldale Road, West Hartford, CT. The Superior Court
`specifically retained jurisdiction over the disposition and possession of this property and a
`dismissal of this matter should be granted. The Wife was given possessory rights of the
`property. The Husband was not given any possessory rights after dissolution. Plaintiff in the
`case at hand is asking this Court to modify the Orders of the Family Superior Court when the
`Family Superior Court has retained jurisdiction over this issue. If the Plaintiff is seeking
`possession of this property over the previously ordered possession to the Wife, the Plaintiff will
`need to return to the Family Court to modify their order. This Court is without subject matter
`jurisdiction to enter a subsequent essential modification of those Orders.
`
`Even if the Superior Court had not retained jurisdiction, “It is well established that
`"[a]lthough the court does not have the authority to modify a property assignment, a court, after
`distributing property, which includes assigning the debts and liabilities of the parties, does have
`the authority to issue postjudgment orders effectuating its judgment. This court has explained the
`difference between postjudgment orders that modify a judgment rather than effectuate it. A
`
`modification is [a] change; an alteration or amendment which introduces new elements into the
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`details, or cancels some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject-matter
`intact.... In contrast, an order effectuating an existing judgment allows the court to protect the
`integrity of its original ruling by ensuring the parties' timely compliance therewith.” (Citations
`
`omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Richman v. Wallman , 172 Conn. App. 616, 620-21,
`
`161 A.3d 666 (2017) ; see also Roberts v. Roberts , 32 Conn. App. 465, 471-72, 629 A.2d 1160
`
`(1993) (order to auction property when judgment required sale of property constituted
`
`effectuation of judgment). Krahel v. Czoch, 186 Conn.App. 22, 198 A.3d 103 (Conn. App.
`
`2018), 39. "We have recognized that it is within the equitable powers of the trial court to fashion
`whatever orders [are] required to protect the integrity of [its original] judgment." (Internal
`
`quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 471, 629 A.2d 1160 ; see also Commissioner v. Youth
`
`Challenge of Greater Hartford, Inc. , 219 Conn. 657, 670, 594 A.2d 958 (1991).”
`
`Krahel v. Czoch, 186 Conn.App. 22, 198 A.3d 103 (Conn. App. 2018), 39.
`
`The Superior Court for family matters has the ability to effectuate it’s Judgment. The
`parties are carrying out the Judgment of the Family Court in the action of selling the property.
`Any modification of those Orders and requested changes to possession of the marital property
`should be directed to the Family Superior Court.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Defendant hereby respectfully requests the Court dismiss this matter for lack of
`
`jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Family Superior Court retained exclusive continuing
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jurisdiction on the issue the disposition and possession of the marital residence, Jillian Baboff v.
`
`Russell Baboff, bearing Docket Number: HHD-FA22-6153878-S, and any change of
`
`circumstances would be the proper subject of a modification in that action. This subsequent
`
`summary process action constitutes an improper modification and therefore requires dismissal.
`
`DEFENDANT,
`
`2 (AU
`Betha y E. Babglt}l\
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`
`36-B West Main Street
`
`Avon, CT 06001
`
`860-677-5885
`
`Juris # 427437
`
`Her Attorneys
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via first class mail and electronic
`delivery on July 9, 2025 to all counsel and pro se parties of record:
`
`Vincent Provenzano, Esq.
`
`MANCINI PROVENZANO & FUTTNER LLC
`37 WEST CENTER STREET
`
`SUITE 208
`
`SOUTHINGTON, CT 06489
`
`Betflany E Bab 1tt
`Commissioner of the Superior Court
`
`KLEIN & BABBITT, LLC
`10 Avon Meadow Lane, Suite 2, Avon, Connecticut 06001 (860) 677-5885 Fax (860) 677-5887
`Juris No. 427437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
