In Solomon v. Keiser, 212 Conn. 741, 562 A.2d 524 (1989) judgment had been rendered in accordance with a stipulated agreement requiring the plaintiff to deposit money in an escrow account for the purchase of real property owned by the defendant. Solomon v. Keiser, supra, 212 Conn. at 743. Six months later, a dispute arose as to the terms of the stipulated agreement. Id. After the parties failed to settle, the trial court returned the case to the docket and granted the plaintiff's motion to release the escrow fund. Id., at 742. In an articulation, the court stated that by returning the escrow funds to the plaintiff, it intended to "recreate and maintain that status quo prior to the stipulated judgment so that the trial de novo . . . would resolve the case once and for all." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 744. We dismissed the defendant's appeal from the trial court's order for lack of a final judgment. Id., at 744-45. The Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal on the issue of whether we had erred in dismissing the appeal after the trial court had opened and set aside a stipulated judgment and authorized the release of a previously ordered escrow fund. Id., at 745. The Court reversed this court's dismissal of the appeal and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings on the ground that the defendant's claim that the court lacked authority to open the judgment was immediately appealable. Id., at 747-48. Although the plaintiff had never filed a motion to open the judgment, the Supreme Court viewed the trial court's actions as having the same effect. Id., at 747. The court specifically noted the plaintiff's admission that the trial court's ruling on the escrow fund was "comparable" to opening the judgment. Id.