Connecticut Appeals

Advance Release Opinions - Review and Analysis

Home » Archives for April 2018

Archives for April 2018

Advance Release Opinions – April 20

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about civil procedure, divorce, mortgage foreclosure, and professional negligence.

Civil Procedure

Anderson v. Ocean State Job Lot -Trial court dismissed because plaintiff failed to appear for a court-ordered deposition. Plaintiff moved to open, saying that he missed the deposition because he was incarcerated. Trial court denied the motion. On appeal, plaintiff claimed that defendant obtained the dismissal by fraud. Appellate Court affirmed because plaintiff did not raise his fraud claim before the trial court, and because he did not verify his motion to open by oath as CGS § 52-212 requires.

Bridgeport v. Grace Building, LLC – Tenant’s lawyer withdraw and trial court continued the trial so tenant could get a new one. Tenant had a new lawyer lined up, but the day before trial, the new lawyer said he would not appear for tenant. Trial court defaulted tenant for failure to appear for trial. Tenant moved to open the default, saying that the debacle with new lawyer was reasonable cause and there were good defenses, as reflected in his already-filed answer and special defenses. Trial court denied the motion. After tenant appealed, trial court granted landlord’s motion to terminate appellate stay, and landlord took possession. Appellate Court found that turnover of possession did not moot appeal since lease was for 98 years, meaning that court could restore property to tenant. Appellate Court also found that denying motion to open was an abuse of discretion. Tenant’s answer included meritorious defenses; delays in the action were at landlord’s door, not tenant’s; and tenant’s new lawyer sandbagged him the day before trial.

Packard v. Packard – Appellate Court declined to review this appeal in a divorce case because “[t]he defendant, in her lengthy and detailed brief, present[ed] no legal analysis and cite[d] virtually no case law.”

Divorce

Hirschfeld v. Machinist – Latest installment of what seems to be a never-ending divorce. In this installment, Appellate Court rejected all four of plaintiff’s contentions and affirmed. First, plaintiff claimed that defendant was in contempt for underpaying her for certain investments that were supposed to have been divided. Appellate Court found defendant could not be in contempt because there was no order to pay plaintiff any share of the investments. That’s just what defendant did in good faith after he learned that an in kind division was impossible. Second, plaintiff claimed that defendant was in contempt for underpaying alimony in the first year of the divorce because of a questionable interpretation of the effect of an income tax issue. Appellate Court found that although defendant’s interpretation did not have a reasonable basis, he made it in good faith and it was not frivolous. Third, plaintiff claimed that defendant was in contempt for violating a minimum alimony provision and that the trial court had improperly accepted parole evidence on the meaning of that provision. Appellate Court found that the provision could not be reasonably interpreted any other way. Fourth, plaintiff claimed she was entitled to her attorney’s fees in bringing the other three matters to the trial court’s attention. Appellate Court found that she was not entitled to attorney’s fees because the trial court properly declined to hold defendant in contempt.

Schimenti v. Schimenti – Parties agreed to amend original judgment by requiring defendant to pay 50% of plaintiff’s initiation fee for a country club golf membership. Defendant did not pay, and by way of excuse wanted to offer evidence about the parties’ intent for the provision. Trial court declined that request, and ordered defendant to pay as agreed. Certain of the trial court’s comments in doing so suggested a personal bias based on her own experiences with country club golf memberships. Relying on the plain error doctrine, defendant appealed. Appellate Court reversed, finding that it would be a manifest injustice to defendant to do anything else.

Mortgage Foreclosure

Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Condron – My case. Under most residential mortgages, notice of default is given when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered if sent by any other means. Bank sent default notice by certified mail, but failed to prove actual delivery. Trial court ruled that actual delivery was not required because certified mail was the same thing as first class mail, and certified mail substantially complied with the notice provision in any event. Appellate Court reversed, finding that certified mail requires actual delivery, and substantial compliance does not apply where there is no notice, as opposed to a technically deficient notice.

Professional Negligence

Windsor v. Loureiro Engineering Associates – Seven year statute of limitations of CGS § 52-584a barred plaintiff’s claim against architects and engineers for allegedly negligently preparing a Comparable-to-New report that plaintiff used to obtain state funding for a school renovation project.

 

Advance Release Opinions – April 13

by

Review of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s advance release opinion about an award of attorney’s fees under CGS § 42-150bb.

Attorney’s Fees

Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman – Trial court rejected defendant’s claim for attorney’s fees under CGS § 42-150bb as untimely under Practice Book § 11-21. Appellate Court reversed, finding that the 30-day time limit under Practice Book § 11-21 is directory, not mandatory, so the court has discretion to consider motions filed after 30 days. Because the trial court failed to exercise its discretion, Appellate Court remanded the case with direction to conduct a hearing on defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees. Supreme Court affirmed for the same reasons.

Advance Release Opinions – April 13

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about administrative law, breach of contract, business dissolution, civil procedure, eviction, mortgage foreclosure, personal injury, and worker’s compensation.

Administrative Law

Berka v. Middletown – Trial court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Berka’s appeal of notice of violations issued by city’s department of health because Berka named only city, and not department of health, as the defendant. Appellate Court concluded that failure to name department of health did not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction, but affirmed because his failure to serve department did.

Breach of Contract

Randazzo v. Sakon – Parties resolved blow up over development of shopping center with global settlement that had several inter-related pieces, including an easement from plaintiff to defendant. Though everyone signed the global agreement, defendant never signed the easement itself. Every year after that, in accordance with the easement, plaintiff sent defendant a bill for the taxes on the easement portion of the property. And every year defendant refused to pay. Plaintiff sued. Case was tried to an attorney trial referee. Trial court accepted referee’s recommendation to enter judgment for plaintiff. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) plaintiff’s claim was for breach of contract, not indemnification, and thus had a 6-year, not a 3-year, statute of limitations; (2) statute of frauds did not apply to the easement because defendant had accepted the conveyance, and the global settlement validated the easement in any event; and (3) holding defendant responsible for the part of the taxes that he voluntarily agreed to pay was merely holding defendant to his agreement, and was not (a) an impermissible, separate tax on the property subject to the easement; (b) an impermissible double tax on top of the additional tax he had to pay because the easement increased the value of his property; or (c) something to be shared by another tenant who also used the easement but had not agreed to pay any portion of the taxes.

Business Dissolution

Chioffi v. Martin – Law firm disintegrated. Trial court found that Martin breached two sections of the partnership agreement by taking out too much money during the windup and awarded Chioffi damages and attorney’s fees. Trial court denied Chioffi’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting. Both parties appealed. Appellate Court found that Martin did breach one section of the partnership agreement, but it was not the section that would give Chioffi attorney’s fees. Appellate Court also found that (1) Martin breached a fiduciary duty, which can give rise to attorney’s fees because it is a tort; (2) either Chioffi had waived his claim to an accounting, or trial court did not abuse discretion in denying Chioffi’s claim for one; and (3) trial court did not miscalculate Chioffi’s damages. Remanded to trial court to determine whether to award Chioffi attorney’s fees for Martin’s breach of fiduciary duty, and if so, how much.

Civil Procedure

McMahon v. Middletown – In this municipal employment case, trial court denied former deputy police chief’s request to ask leading questions on his direct examination of current and former city officials. On appeal, McMahon claimed that he had an absolute right under CGS § 52-178 to lead these witnesses. Appellate Court declined to review the claim, and affirmed, finding that McMahon had failed to preserve the issue for appeal because he did not distinctly raise the statute, or the absolute right he claimed it conferred, before the trial court.

Eviction

Altama, LLC v. Napoli Motors, Inc. – Commercial tenant claimed that summary process complaint did not allege that lease had terminated by lapse of time, and that it had timely exercised its right to renew. Trial court found for landlord. Appellate Court affirmed.

Mortgage Foreclosure

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Demelis – Appellate Court affirmed judgment of foreclosure by sale, finding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing dismissal: (1) for failure to comply with conditional order for dismissal for failure to prosecute; or (2) for failure to prosecute despite a delay of more than two years. Appellate Court declined to review borrower’s claim that trial court abused its discretion in denying motion for articulation, reconsideration and/or reargument, because borrower did not file a motion for review of that denial, which was her only remedy.

Personal Injury

Osborn v. Waterbury – Fifth grader was assaulted at recess by other students. Trial court found for plaintiff, concluding that ‘‘one . . . student intern and three . . . or four . . . staff members were not sufficient to exercise proper control over perhaps as many as . . . (400) students.’’ Appellate Court reversed with direction to render judgment for defendants because the number of staff necessary for proper control required expert testimony and plaintiff failed to offer any.

Worker’s Compensation

Desmond v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. – Interesting procedural issue for starters. Trial court granted defendant’s motion to strike because plaintiff’s claims were barred by the worker’s compensation exclusivity provision. Plaintiff filed a substitute complaint. Defendant requested revisions seeking deletion of all of the allegations of the substitute complaint as not materially different from the complaint that was struck, and did not cure its deficiencies. Trial court overruled plaintiff’s objections and dismissed the action. Appellate Court noted that, by filing the amended complaint, plaintiff waived the right to appeal the issue whether the original complaint was properly struck. Instead, all plaintiff could appeal was whether the amended complaint was materially different from the original complaint and cured its deficiencies. Appellate Court declined to review that issue because plaintiff had inadequately briefed it. But, Appellate Court did reverse the trial court’s ruling denying plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her substitute complaint to add a retaliatory discrimination claim, finding that the trial court based its denial on the wrong proposed amended substitute complaint.

 

Advance Release Opinions – April 6

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about civil procedure, mortgage foreclosure, noncompete agreements, and vicarious liability.

Civil Procedure

Ruiz v. Victory Properties, LLC – Plaintiff brought negligence claims against D1, and derivative fraudulent transfer claims against D2 and D3. D1, and D2 and D3, filed separate summary judgment motions and the trial court granted both of them. Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment for D1, but not the summary judgment for D2 and D3. Over the next four and a half years, Appellate Court reversed the summary judgment for D1, and Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. Back in the trial court, plaintiff moved to open the summary judgment against D2 and D3, arguing that the reversal as to D1 presented good cause for reviving the derivative claims against D2 and D3. Trial court denied the motion. Appellate Court affirmed because (1) Practice Book § 17-4, CGS § 52-212a, and the doctrine of finality of judgments all precluded opening a judgment more than four months after it became final for purposes of appeal; and (2) plaintiff did not argue that the four-month period should be tolled for any equitable reason. Appellate Court also found that the appellate stay under Practice Book § 61-11(a) (1) did not toll the four-month period because it precludes only proceedings to enforce or carry out a judgment, and a motion to open is not a proceeding to enforce or carry out a judgment; and (2) did not apply to the summary judgment for D2 and D3 because plaintiff did not appeal that judgment.

Mortgage Foreclosure

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Park City Sports, LLC – Mild yawn. Even if plaintiff failed to comply with standing order about federal loss mitigation affidavit, it did not deprive trial court of subject matter jurisdiction because that depends on statutes or the constitution, and standing orders are not statutes or even rules of practice. There were no issues of fact about application of mortgage payments; date of default or propriety of the notice of default; assignment of the note to plaintiff; or the validity of the federal loss mitigation affidavit. Appellate Court declined to review defendant’s claim that the trial court should have granted his petition for foreclosure mediation because it failed to present a record adequate for review.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Mollo – Trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability even though the motion did not address defendant’s special defenses because plaintiff filed the motion before defendant filed his answer.  Appellate Court reversed, finding that trial court lacked authority to raise and consider, sua sponte, issues that plaintiff hadn’t raised, namely whether there fact issues about the special defenses.

Noncompete Agreement

DeLeo v. Equale & Cirione, LLP – Accounting firm’s partnership agreement included noncompete clause. DeLeo left the firm and began practicing on his own. He then sued the firm, claiming essentially that he was still a partner, was improperly excluded from the firm, and the court should dissolve the firm. The firm counterclaimed for breach of the noncompete agreement. Trial court found for the firm on DeLeo’s claims and on the firm’s counterclaims. Appellate Court agreed with DeLeo’s claim that the noncompete agreement was not a liquidated damages clause, but a restraint of trade subject to a reasonableness analysis. Since the trial court did not perform that analysis, Appellate Court reversed and remanded for that purpose. Appellate Court did consider, and reject, DeLeo’s other claims that (1) trial court found he was estopped to deny enforceability of noncompete agreement (it didn’t); and (2) firm waived noncompete agreement (it didn’t). Appellate Court also rejected what might have been DeLeo’s best argument because he had not raised it in the trial court and did not meet the requirements for plain error review. More specifically, on appeal, DeLeo claimed that trial court should have dissolved the “partnership” because, after he left, there was only one partner, and there is no such thing as a one-partner partnership. In rejecting this claim, Appellate Court noted that not only had DeLeo failed to raise it in the trial court, he was contradicting himself because his position there was that he was still a partner, making it at least a two-partner partnership.

Vicarious Liability

Fiano v. Old Saybrook Fire Company No. 1, Inc. – As he was leaving firehouse to go home to change for his high school yearbook photo, seventeen-year-old junior firefighter hit plaintiff with his car (plaintiff was riding a motorcycle). Plaintiff wanted to hold Fire Company vicariously liable. Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s summary judgment for Fire Company because junior firefighter was not acting within the scope of his duties when the accident happened.

Advance Release Opinions – April 5

by

Review of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s advance release opinion about a breach of contract.

Breach of Contract

AMICA Mutual Insurance Company v. Muldowney – This case involves a subrogation claim for property damage by the landlord’s insurer against the tenant who caused it. Supreme Court has already confirmed that the default rule is that there is no subrogation right absent a “specific agreement” to the contrary, but didn’t spell out what the “specific agreement” must say to overcome the default rule. DiLullo v. Joseph, 259 Conn. 847 (2002). Trial court and Appellate Court both concluded that since the lease here made tenant liable for any property damage tenant caused and required tenant to buy insurance to cover it, there was a specific agreement otherwise that overcame the default rule. Supreme Court affirmed, essentially concluding that any agreement that puts the tenant on notice that tenant will be responsible for property damage, and needs to buy insurance to cover it, suffices to overcome the default rule; the agreement need not specifically mention subrogation.