Digest of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about trusts and estates, tax assessment, and…
Summary Judgment Movant Must Demonstrate the Absence of Any Fact Issue
A summary judgment movant must demonstrate the absence of any fact issue before the opponent must do anything, according to the Connecticut Appellate Court’s opinion in Capasso v. Christmann, to be officially released on February 23, 2016.
In this Connecticut appeal, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on all six counts of plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs filed opposition papers. “Although they argued that genuine issues of material fact existed as to all of the plaintiffs’ claims, and thus that summary judgment was not warranted as to any such count, the plaintiffs made no specific references to evidence in their objection.”
At a later hearing, the trial court conducted a trial management conference in chambers. “On the record after that conference, the court had requested that the plaintiffs submit a more detailed response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” The trial court directed plaintiffs to provide specific factual citations to record evidence and to “state with precision … the cause of action in the first count of your second revised complaint.”
Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum that “contained general references to the affidavits that previously had been filed by the plaintiffs, [but] did not contain specific citations to the evidence of record, as the court had instructed.”
The trial court concluded that plaintiffs had not complied with either of its directives. “[T]he court informed the plaintiffs’ counsel that his supplemental memorandum of law opposing the motion for summary judgment was ‘completely inadequate . . . .’ The plaintiffs’ counsel, however, maintained that he had complied with both of the court’s instructions. The court then stated that it would take the matter on the papers, and concluded the hearing. Significantly, the court heard no argument on the merits of the motion for summary judgment.”
“Later that same day, the [trial] court issued a memorandum of decision in which it granted the defendants’ motion ‘for the failure of its counseled opponents to submit an adequate brief following specific instructions to do so.’ … Relying on a case from the United States Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit, the court declined to search the record for facts asserted in the plaintiffs’ supplemental memorandum.”
Plaintiffs appealed. The Appellate Court reversed.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments on Appeal
Plaintiffs argued that the trial court’s instructions weren’t clear and failure to file adequate opposition was not a valid basis for granting summary judgment in any event.
Appellate Court Concludes Summary Judgment Movant Must Demonstrate the Absence of Any Fact Issue
To begin, the Appellate Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the trial court’s instructions were not clear: “The trial court clearly and unambiguously stated on the record that the plaintiffs’ counsel was to make specific citations to the record evidence in the opposition to the motion for summary judgment and to state precisely the cause of action set forth in count one of the operative complaint.” Plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition memorandum did neither.
Next, the Appellate Court, relying on ample Supreme Court precedent, observed that “‘the rule that the party opposing summary judgment must provide evidentiary support for its opposition applies only when the moving party has first made out a prima facie case for summary judgment. . . . [I]f the party moving for summary judgment fails to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the nonmoving party may rest on mere allegations or denials contained in his pleadings.'”
“The trial court failed to address or consider whether the defendants had met their burden of establishing that they were entitled to summary judgment. The court instead rendered judgment in favor of the defendants because the plaintiffs’ counsel had submitted an inadequate brief.” This was error.
“Under our jurisprudence, the court was required to consider, in the first instance, whether the defendants, as the movants, had satisfied their burden of establishing their entitlement to summary judgment. If, and only if that burden was met, would the court have considered the plaintiffs’ memoranda in opposition and supporting evidentiary submissions to determine if they raised genuine issues as to any facts material to the defendants’ right to judgment in their favor. If the defendants had failed to meet their initial burden, it would not matter if the plaintiffs had not filed any response.”
About the Photo
The dispute between plaintiffs and defendants apparently started when plaintiffs installed a fence on their property. Plaintiffs and defendants were neighbors. Plaintiffs operated a construction business out of their property. Defendants lived in theirs. The opinion describes a little bit of their relationship. You can read more about it the New Haven Independent.
Related Posts
