Connecticut Appeals

Advance Release Opinions - Review and Analysis

Home » Contracts

Contracts

Advance Release Opinions – Appellate Court – September 7

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about breach of contract, civil procedure, mortgage foreclosure, and personal injury.

Breach of Contract

Ajluni v. Chainani – Statute of limitations did not bar this breach of guaranty claim because the limitations period commenced anew when Chainani reaffirmed the debt.

Downing v. Dragone – Dragone hired Downing to auction cars. Dragone said he agreed to pay Downing $2,500. Downing said she had a contract for 1% of the gross sales. Trial court admitted into evidence an unsigned “contract” supporting Downing’s claim. Trial court concluded that the unsigned contract created an implied-in-fact contract because even though Dragone did not read it until four months after the auction, Downing had given it him before the auction. Trial court found for Downing on her breach of contract claim. Appellate Court reversed because the implied-in-fact contract finding was clearly erroneous: Dragone’s testimony was that he did not receive the contract until four months after the auction, not that he did not read it until four months after the auction.

Civil Procedure

A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc v. Gause – Used-car transaction. Arbitrator found for Gause and the award included punitive damages. Appellate Court found that trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award, and properly granted Gause’s motion to confirm it, because the arbitration was an unrestricted submission and arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law in awarding punitive damages.

Mortgage Foreclosure

Christiana Trust v. Lewis – Trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment as to liability only. Appellate Court reversed, finding that Lewis’ affidavit swearing that the mortgage was forged was sufficient to create an issue of fact about the mortgage’s validity.

Hirsch v. Woermer – Appellate Court affirmed, reaching two conclusions: (1) Allegations of one year loan term, 15% interest, and 5 points, were insufficient to overcome motion to strike unconscionability special defense; and (2) Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Woermer’s motion to open the judgment so that he could particularize the special defense because he failed to amend after trial court granted Hirsch’s motion to strike and there was nothing new in his proposed amendment.

Personal Injury

Bisson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. – Slip and fall on water on the floor inside the store on a snowy day. Trial court granted Walmart summary judgment because Walmart did not have constructive notice of the water in time to do anything about it. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) Walmart’s evidence showed that it had inspected the spot and didn’t see any water 40 seconds before Bisson fell, and (2) Bisson failed to counteract that evidence with evidence creating an issue of fact (Bisson’s evidence included Walmart’s video surveillance, which both courts found supported Walmart’s claim).

 

Advance Release Opinions – Appellate Court – July 20

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about civil procedure, contracts (third-party beneficiary), easement, and worker’s compensation.

Civil Procedure

Magee Avenue, LLC v. Lima Ceramic Tile, LLC – Action for breach of lease agreement and unjust enrichment against Lima and Lima’s manager. Lima’s manager moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract counts but did not file a supporting affidavit until the day before the hearing. At the hearing, Magee objected to the affidavit because it was filed too late to be considered and was not based on personal knowledge. Trial court permitted Lima’s manager to testify. It then granted Lima’s manager summary judgment on the breach of contract counts and the unjust enrichment count (trial court’s decision said the complaint is “stricken” as to Lima’s manager, but Appellate Court concluded it was really summary judgment). Appellate Court reversed, finding that trial court (1) improperly considered Lima’s manager’s affidavit because it was filed too late under Practice Book § 17-45; (2) improperly permitted and considered Lima’s manager’s live testimony because that necessarily required trial court to make credibility determinations and factual findings, which necessarily precluded summary judgment; and (3) improperly rendered summary judgment on the unjust enrichment count because Lima’s manager’s written motion did not request summary judgment on that count.

Contracts (Third-Party Beneficiary)

Hilario’s Truck Center, LLC v. Rinaldi – Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s decision that Hilario’s lacked standing to sue Nationwide directly for towing and storage services it rendered for Rinaldi after she crashed her car because Hilario’s was not a third-party beneficiary of the insurance contract between Nationwide and Rinaldi.

Easement

Davis v. Property Owners Association at Moodus Lake Shores, Inc. – Appellate Court affirmed (1) trial court’s decision to permit defense experts to testify despite the arguably late disclosure because plaintiffs failed to show any prejudice; and (2) trial court’s denial of an easement by implication because the evidence showed that plaintiffs could access their property without crossing defendant’s (Appellate Court actually adopted the trial court’s memorandum of decision on this point, but Appellate Court’s decision earlier references the access evidence).

Worker’s Compensation

Barker v. All Roofs by Dominic – Bridgeport was “principal employer” under CGS § 31-291 and thus responsible for benefits for the employee of an uninsured subcontractor who was injured while repairing a roof on a Bridgeport-owned building because (1) our Supreme Court had already confirmed that a municipality can be a principal employer under § 31-291; (2) the statute creating the Second Injury Fund, which compensates injured employees of uninsured employers, did not expressly or implicitly repeal or modify § 31-291; and (3) commissioner properly concluded that the roofing repairs to the Bridgeport-owned building were part of Bridgeport’s “business” under § 31-291, since CGS § 7-148 obligated Bridgeport to repair its property.

 

Advance Release Opinions – July 5

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about administrative law, breach of contract, civil procedure, domestic relations, and mortgage foreclosure.

Administrative Law

Starble v. Inland Wetlands Commission – Over Starble’s objection, commission granted wetlands-permit application. Trial court affirmed. Appellate Court reversed, finding that (1) statutory and regulatory provisions requiring wetlands-permit applicant to prove absence of feasible and prudent alternative was mandatory, not directory, because the provisions were substantive, having been enacted to protect inland wetlands; and (2) since commission supported its decision with explicit findings, trial court was precluded from reviewing the record for evidence supporting anything other than those explicit findings.

Breach of Contract

DAB Three, LLC v. LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. – DAB Three sued five corporations and two individual insurance brokers for failing to obtain the correct coverage. Trial court dismissed as to LandAmerica Financial Group (“LFG”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because LFG had been discharged in a bankruptcy. Then, accepting the representation of one of the remaining defendants, Lawyers Title Environmental Insurance Service Agency, Inc. (“LTEISA”), that it was the only party that could be liable for a breach of a brokerage contract, trial court granted summary judgment for the other three remaining defendants. Next, accepting LTEISA’s lawyers’ representation that LTEISA did not exist because it had become defendant LandAmerica Environmental Insurance Service Agency, Inc. (“LEISA”) before the policy was issued, trial court granted the lawyers’ motion to withdraw their appearance. So, the case was to be tried only against LTEISA. But since LTEISA did not exist, DAB Three declined to go to trial, leading trial court to dismiss as to LTEISA, the last remaining defendant. Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal as to LFG, finding that although LFG’s bankruptcy discharge would not have protected LFG’s insurer from liability for LFG’s breach, DAB Three had never made any claim against any such insurer. Since LFG would have been responsible for the costs of defending DAB Three’s claims, they violated the bankruptcy discharge and deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellate Court reversed the summary judgment as to LEISA, finding that it could not stand in the face of defendants’ admission that LTEISA was really LEISA. In other words, the issue of fact that precluded summary judgment against LTEISA also precluded summary judgment against LEISA because they were one and the same.

Civil Procedure

Speer v. Department of Agriculture – Speer appealed commissioner’s order to euthanize Speer’s dogs. Trial court nonsuited Speer for failing to appear at a pretrial conference, though her counsel appeared, she was available telephone, and she actually spoke with trial court by telephone. Trial court then denied Speer’s verified motion to open and set aside the nonsuit in a one-sentence order finding that Practice Book § 14-13 required Speer to attend the pretrial. When Appellate Court ordered trial court to articulate its reasons for denying Speer’s motion, trial court said Speer had not complied with any of Practice Book § 17-43’s requirements. Appellate Court reversed, finding that Speer had complied with all of the requirements of Practice Book § 17-43 and CGS § 52-212, and that trial court abused its discretion in denying Speer’s motion. Appellate Court also noted, in a footnote, that trial court’s initial reliance on § 14-13 was misplaced because § 14-7 exempts administrative appeals from § 14-13’s pretrial rules.

Domestic Relations

Tala E.H. v. Syed I. – Trial court granted wife two-week, ex parte order of protection against husband, which the trial court continued for six months after a hearing on notice. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) the record did not disclose any bias or judicial misconduct; and (2) trial court did not make any clearly erroneous factual findings or abuse discretion.

Mortgage Foreclosure

Webster Bank v. Frasca – Trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for a deficiency judgment because plaintiff failed to establish the property’s fair market value by “credible and accurate evidence.” Appellate Court affirmed, finding no plain error in the trial court’s conclusions that (1) plaintiff’s appraisal was not credible; and (2) plaintiff failed to carry its preponderance-of-evidence burden as to value. Nor was there any plain error from alleged judicial bias, since the trial court’s comments about the substantial financial resources of defendant’s former father-in-law, and the trial court’s knowledge of real estate in the area where the property is located, though concerning, were not a manifestation of bias, but just unnecessary and unhelpful commentary. Appellate Court also confirmed that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting and considering the evidence, and in denying plaintiff’s motion for a protective order regarding plaintiff’s deposition.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lorson – The longstanding requirement in Connecticut that plaintiff must plead and prove compliance with conditions precedent contained in the note and mortgage does not apply to FHA/HUD conditions precedent referenced, but not explicitly contained, in the note and mortgage. Rather, borrower must affirmatively plead and prove failure of any such condition precedent. This passage from the opinion explains why: “There are potentially dozens of HUD requirements that a defendant could argue are necessary prerequisites to the bringing of a foreclosure action… It is inconsistent with our expectation that trials are not supposed to be a game of blindman’s bluff to expect a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to anticipate which HUD requirement a defendant will seize upon to argue after the plaintiff rests that it has failed to prove its case. Foreclosure trials, and motions for summary judgment in foreclosure actions, in which the facts are largely undisputed, would become drawn-out, expensive affairs as a plaintiff presents evidence regarding a lengthy list of requirements. Moreover, because plaintiffs typically are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees upon the entry of judgment, the parties truly harmed by imposing such requirements on foreclosing plaintiffs are the borrowers who will be required to pay the additional fees caused by such a procedure. Consequently, in this particular context, it makes much more sense to require the defendant to plead the specific requirements that have not been met and bear the burden of proving the plaintiff’s noncompliance with those requirements. Not only is this more logical and more fair to plaintiffs and the vast majority of defendants who have no interest in raising such issues, it also is consistent with the manner in which other states have addressed the issue and the guidance provided by HUD itself.” Oh, and Appellate Court also affirmed as to borrower’s other two arguments, equitable estoppel (alleged to have arisen when plaintiff added a condition to a forbearance agreement already in progress) and unclean hands (from plaintiff’s allegedly ignoring HUD requirements willfully and in bad faith).

 

Advance Release Opinions – June 22

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about administrative law, breach of contract, eviction, and mortgage foreclosure.

Administrative Law

Gianetti v. Dunsby – Town ordinance gave tax relief to the elderly who applied to the assessor and met certain criteria. Assessor denied Gianetti’s application, and Board of Selectman denied his appeal. Gianetti then sued selectman individually for improperly denying his application. Selectman moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because nothing authorized Gianetti to appeal the Board’s decision to the Superior Court. Trial court denied the motion. Appellate Court reversed, finding that Gianetti’s action was really an administrative appeal and there was no statute permitting him to appeal the matter to the Superior Court.

Breach of Contract

Emeritus Senior Living v. Lepore – Daughter signed a senior living agreement as her mother’s representative. The agreement made daughter and mother jointly liable for services. Emeritus sued daughter to collect payment for services rendered. Trial court found the agreement unconscionable and against public policy, and denied Emeritus any relief. Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the record did not support either of the trial court’s findings.

Eviction

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Farina – Farina claimed that Fannie Mae lacked standing to evict him because it never took title to the property in the underlying foreclosure. More specifically, Farina claimed that his appeal of the trial’s court’s denial of his third motion to open the foreclosure judgment invoked the appellate stay, rendering the law date ineffective, and Fannie Mae had never reset the law date after Appellate Court had dismissed his appeal as moot. Trial court agreed, and granted Farina’s motion to dismiss the eviction action. Appellate Court reversed, explaining that it had dismissed the prior appeal as moot because Farina had not complied with Practice Book § 61-11(g), which was necessary to invoke the appellate stay for an appeal of a third denial of a motion to open. Since Farina never petitioned for certification of that dismissal, it became a final judgment and was not subject to collateral attack in the eviction action.

Kargul v. Smith – Yawn. After serving notice to quit, Kargul started and then withdrew a summary process action. Kargul served a second notice to quit and started a second summary process action. The second action ended with a stipulated judgment, which Smith later violated. On Kargul’s application, trial court ordered that execution could issue immediately. Smith appealed, claiming that the first notice to quit terminated the tenancy, thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the second summary process action. Appellate Court affirmed because Kargul’s withdrawal of the first summary process action put the parties back to square one.

Mortgage Foreclosure

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee v. Fraboni – A late-filed appeal does not invoke, or revive, the appellate stay in a noncriminal case.

Advance Release Opinions – June 8

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about breach of contract, condemnation, professional negligence (legal malpractice), and reformation.

Breach of Contract

Murallo v. United Builders Supply Co., Inc. – Parties testified that they had a telephone conversation in which they reached an agreement resolving a dispute they were having over construction materials. Defendant confirmed the terms in a follow up email. Plaintiff later alleged that defendant refused to honor the agreement. After a courtside trial, trial court concluded that defendant’s email was not a contract but an unaccepted offer, and found for defendant. Appellate Court reversed, finding the unaccepted-offer conclusion clearly erroneous as defendant had admitted that the email memorialized the telephonic agreement.

Condemnation

Gartrell v. Hartford – Not technically condemnation, but close. Doesn’t really matter because the issue was not preserved for appeal, so Appellate Court declined to review it. After a fire at Gantrell’s building, Hartford tore it down. Gantrell sued. Jury trial. After the close of evidence, Hartford moved for a directed verdict. Court reserved decision, pending jury’s answer to a single interrogatory asking whether Hartford could have believed there was an imminent danger allowing it to tear down the building. Jury answered “Yes.” Court then asked parties if they had anything to add to the motion for directed verdict. When they said “No,” court directed verdict for Hartford. On appeal, Gantrell argued that jury’s finding that Hartford could have believed there was imminent danger did not support directed verdict; jury would have had to have found that Hartford did believe there was imminent danger. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that Gantrell failed to preserve the issue for appellate review since he “failed to raise the issue to the trial court on the record, either before or after the jury was charged, or as a basis for denying the city’s motion for a directed verdict.”

Professional Negligence (Legal Malpractice)

Kuehl v. Koskoff – Mr. Kuehl had car accident on his way from his home office to a business meeting. He later discovered an injury that he believed was tied to the car accident. He filed a worker’s comp claim, but the employer and insurer contested whether the accident happened in the scope of employment. Mr. Kuehl signed up with Koskoff to pursue claims against the other driver. Mrs. Kuehl signed up with Koskoff to pursue any claims arising out of the accident. Mr. Kuehl then died, and Koskoff and Mrs. Kuehl believed it was a result of the accident. Mrs. Kuehl missed the deadline for filing a claim for worker’s comp survivor benefits, and the commissioner would not let her proceed. She blamed Koskoff and started a legal malpractice action. Jury found for Mrs. Kuehl. Though there was no expert testimony as to causation, trial court denied Koskoff’s motion to set aside the verdict. Appellate Court reversed, finding that expert testimony was necessary to establish causation, i.e. that it was more likely than not that Mrs. Kuehl would have been awarded survivor’s benefits if she had made her claim on time. Since Mrs. Kuehl failed to present that testimony, trial court should have set aside the verdict.

Reformation

Kaplan v. Scheer – Kaplan has owned her home since 1970. The Scheers became her neighbors in 1999. The Scheers’ house stands between Kaplan’s house and the Long Island Sound. The Scheers have a walkway and stairs that provide access to the water, which Kaplan had a right to use under a water easement granted in an 1882 deed. Kaplan and the Scheers had a contentious relationship and ended up in a dispute about whether Kaplan’s driveway was on the Scheers’ property. They settled that dispute with a written agreement calling for two quitclaim deeds and an easement. One deed, labelled “A” in the settlement agreement, conveyed to the Scheers any interest that Kaplan had in the Scheers’ property. The other deed, labelled “B” in the settlement agreement, conveyed to Kaplan any interest the Scheers had in Kaplan’s property. The easement, labeled “C” in the settlement agreement, gave Kaplan an easement over Scheers’ property – but only as necessary for Scheer to access her property. The documents were recorded in reverse order of their letter designations: Easement first, Scheer-to-Kaplan deed second, and Kaplan-to-Scheer deed third. Sometime after that, the Scheers made their walkway and stairs off limits to Kaplan. Kaplan sued, claiming that (1) the letter designations dictated the recording order, and she would still have her water easement if they had been recorded in that order; and (2) her deed to the Scheers should be reformed to reserve the water easement. Trial court found that (1) the letter designations were a matter of convenience and not intended to specify a recording order (there was also expert testimony that the recording order did not matter); and (2) Kaplan failed to prove a basis for reformation by clear and convincing evidence. Appellate Court affirmed.

 

Advance Release Opinions – June 1

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about breach of contract, child support, custody and visitation, divorce, medical malpractice, and mortgage foreclosure.

Breach of Contract

Bracken v. Windsor Locks – Breach of a settlement agreement. In 1994, Town settled an employment dispute with Bracken by reinstating him as a cop as of June 1993, and giving him a seniority date of September 1987. Bracken understood that to mean that he was entitled to pension credit for the period between his September 1987 seniority date and his June 1993 reinstatement date. Town had the right to buy pension credit for Bracken for that period from the Connecticut Municipal Employee Retirement System any time up until Bracken started receiving benefits. Under the pension plan, Bracken would not be eligible to receive benefits until October 2017. In late 2002 or early 2003, Bracken learned that the Town had not purchased pension credit. Over the ensuing years, Bracken tried to get Town to buy the credit, but Town seemed to prefer to wait. As of 2014, Town still had not bought the credit. Bracken started the action, claiming that the Town had breached the express terms of the settlement agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Trial court concluded that the 6-year statute of limitations, and laches, barred the action because the breach occurred with reinstatement in 1993. Appellate Court reversed, noting that since Town could buy pension credit up until October 2017, Bracken’s 2014 action was for anticipatory breach, and Town had not established laches.

Child Support

Bolat v. Bolat – Judgment entered on parties’ agreement which gave sole legal and primary physical custody of three children to husband, and required no child support from wife. Wife later moved to modify custody. Trial court denied that motion, but found that wife’s income had increased substantially since the original judgment. Husband then filed a motion to modify child support based on the trial court’s finding as to wife’s income and his own loss of employment. His motion asked the court to “see attached,” which appeared to be a motion for child support that included a child support worksheet and wife’s financial affidavits. While that motion was pending, wife filed a motion for contempt, asserting that husband had failed to pay his share of agreed expenses for children’s extracurricular activities. In denying husband’s motion to modify, trial court found that defendant had not properly raised anything other than his own loss of income and declined to consider evidence of the change in wife’s income. Trial court granted wife’s motion. Appellate Court reversed as to both, finding that (1) husband had properly raised wife’s increase in income by asking the court to see the motion for child support attached to his motion to modify; and (2) husband did not wilfully disobey order about extracurricular expenses because they weren’t “agreed expenses” – he had told wife that he could not agree because he could not afford them.

Custody and Visitation

Kyle S. v. Jayne K. – Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s orders granting Jayne K custody of T (the child) and a relief from abuse restraining order against Kyle S, finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Kyle S presented an immediate and present risk of physical danger or psychological harm to T, and that a change in custody was warranted. But, Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s order, that the child psychologist was to determine the scope of Kyle S’s visitation with T, as an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Divorce

Hamburg v. Hamburg – Divorce decree required husband to pay into education accounts for the two children. He did, but later raided the accounts for his own purposes. While he and wife were fighting about that and other things in court, wife was murdered. Trial court granted her administrator’s motion to substitute as plaintiff. Trial court then ordered husband to pay some $324,000 to wife’s estate to replace the money he took from the education accounts. Trial court also later granted daughter’s motion to intervene. Husband then moved to dismiss, arguing that neither administrator nor daughter had standing to pursue claims for the education money. Trial court denied the motion. Appellate Court reversed as to the administrator’s standing, but affirmed as to the daughter’s. The administrator lacked standing because the claim for education money belonged to the children, not the estate. For the same reason, daughter had standing to intervene.

Zilkha v. Zilkha – This is actually a tale of two appeals. In the first one, trial court found that husband fraudulently failed to disclose an employment dispute and ordered him to escrow the settlement money he received. Trial court later ordered some of that money be disbursed to pay the fees and retainers of the guardian ad litem, children’s attorney, and experts. Husband appealed claiming that trial court lacked authority to issue that order since it wasn’t in connection with a motion to open. Appellate Court agreed and vacated the order. But Appellate Court did not order any of the recipients to return any money. In the second appeal, trial court denied husband’s request that the recipients return the money. Husband appealed, arguing that by refusing to order return of the money, trial court had violated the Appellate Court’s ruling in the first appeal. Appellate Court affirmed because it had not ordered anyone to return anything – it just vacated the order directing payments that had already been made. Appellate Court also found that husband had failed to show that any equitable basis for ordering the money returned.

Medical Malpractice

Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc. – Defendant doctors were board certified internists. Opinion letter was by a board certified surgeon. Trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss because a surgeon and internists are not similar health care providers, and the complaint did not allege that internists were acting outside the scope of their specialty. Appellate Court affirmed.

Mortgage Foreclosure

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Pollard – Yawn. Per curiam decision affirming the trial court’s conclusion that Pollard’s eight-count counterclaim was legally insufficient because it did not go to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note or mortgage.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Horsey – Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) trial court did not abuse its discretion in opening dismissal for failure to prosecute because the record suggested a reasonable cause for plaintiff’s delay (waiting for prior counsel to return original documents necessary for judgment); (2) defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his judicial bias claim because he never raised it in the trial court; (3) defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that plaintiff failed to timely file certain documents necessary for judgment because never raised in the trial court; (4) summary judgment as to liability was proper because plaintiff’s proof established a prima facie foreclosure claim and defendant did not offer any evidence that created a fact issue; (5) defendant failed to preserve, and inadequately briefed, his claim that plaintiff should have been nonsuited under Practice Book § 17-19 for failing to comply with the trial court’s deadline for filing summary judgment motion; (6) defendant inadequately briefed his claim that plaintiff rendered note and mortgage unenforceable by separating them from each other; (7) defendant could not prevail on his claim that plaintiff lacked standing because defendant failed to rebut the presumption of ownership arising from plaintiff’s holder status; and (8) there was no evidence supporting defendant’s claim of fraud on the court.

Advance Release Opinions – May 18

by

Review of an advance release opinion about breach of a real-estate brokerage contract.

Breach of Contract

Reyher v. Finkeldey – In this dispute over a real-estate brokerage commission,  seller had rejected buyer’s counteroffer, which included financing and inspection contingencies, and buyer testified that it was not ready, willing, or able to close unless those contingencies were fulfilled. In a rare per curiam reversal, the Appellate Court found that the trial court wrongly determined that the broker had obtained a buyer ready, willing, and able to buy seller’s property.

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 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.

Advance Release Opinions – March 23

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court’s advance release opinions about administrative law, civil procedure, contracts, deed restriction, governmental immunity, visitation, and worker’s compensation. I do not review the Court’s advance release opinions about criminal law and habeas corpus. I also do not review the Court’s per curiam decision affirming summary judgment for defendant in a spoliation of evidence and CUTPA case because there isn’t anything in the opinion to review (if you want to see for yourself, the case is Traylor v. Gambrell).

Administrative Law

Metropolitan District v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities – District is a municipal entity the legislature created in 1929 for water supply, waste management and regional planning. Commission is a state agency charged with enforcing statutes barring discrimination. District sought a declaratory judgment, injunction and writ of mandamus on allegations that Commission engaged in improper rulemaking and violated District’s due process rights regarding District’s alleged discriminatory hiring practices at issue in five proceedings before Commission. Trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that District could not yet pursue declaratory relief in Superior Court because it had to first seek that relief before Commission under CGS § 4-176, and it could not yet seek that relief before Commission because three of the five discriminatory hiring claims were still pending before Commission. Appellate Court also confirmed that the exhaustion requirement applied even when challenging Commission’s jurisdiction; the exception for futility or inadequacy of administrative remedy did not apply since there was no showing of futility or inadequacy; and the exception for due process claims under 42 USC 1983 did not apply because lack of an adequate legal remedy remains a condition to injunctive relief even when claim is made under that statute.

Civil Procedure

Ryan v. Cassella – Plaintiff brought collection action against “Paul Cascella dba CIA Integrated Marketing Systems” and trial court entered a judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s failure to appear. In attempting to examine the judgment debtor, plaintiff learned that, though the marshal had served defendant at the correct address, defendant’s name was actually Cassella, with a second “s” instead of a second “c”, and that his company’s name was actually Integrated Marketing Systems, Inc., with an “Inc.” and without “CIA.” Trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to correct the names. After the trial court’s articulations, Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) judgment was against Cassella individually, not against his company, so that correcting the company name did not add a new party; (2) CGS § 52-123 gave the trial court the authority to correct the misspellings because correcting names did not substitute a new party and neither party was prejudiced; (3) the four month limit for opening judgments did not preclude the trial court from correcting the misspellings; (4) trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to open and vacate the trial court’s decision on the motion to correct.

Contracts

Micek-Holt v. Papageorge – Lease-to-buy contract blew up for landlord-seller when tenant-buyer failed to close – in 2011 – but remained in the property without paying anything. Trial court ordering a closing on certain terms, and failing that, judgment to enter for plaintiff extinguishing defendant’s property interest, quieting title in plaintiff, and requiring defendant to pay $150/day use and occupancy. Appellate Court affirmed in a per curiam decision essentially adopting the trial court’s reasoning.

Deed Restriction

Bueno v. Firgeleski – A 1941 deed included a restrictive covenant limiting construction on the property to one house, within specified setbacks, and only if approved by grantor or his successors. Plaintiffs acquired the land in 2008, intending to subdivide into two lots – one for their own home and one for development. The deed into plaintiffs contains the restriction. Trial court declared the restrictions unenforceable because (1) its purpose had been frustrated by a permanent and substantial change in circumstances; (2) it had been abandoned by lack of enforcement; and (3) it benefits no land. Appellate Court affirmed, rejecting defendants’ claims that (1) the evidence did not support certain of the trial court’s factual findings; and (2) the trial court improperly went beyond the four corners of the deeds in interpreting them and misapplied the substantial change of circumstances test.

Governmental Immunity

McCarroll v. East Haven – Child fell from the ladder of a playscape at kindergarten allegedly because of a missing or loose bolt securing one of the rungs. Trial court granted defendant summary judgment, finding that the identifiable victim-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity did not apply because although the child was in identifiable class of victims, the harm was not imminent absent evidence that the missing or loose bolt was apparent to East Haven. Appellate Court affirmed, noting that “[w]hether the bolt was missing or loose, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the probability of the child being injured was so high that the defendant had a clear and unequivocal duty to act to prevent harm.”

Visitation

Nassra v. Nassra – Supervised-visitation provider started collection action in small claims court to recover unpaid fees. Small claims court found that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the action. Service provider then filed an appearance in the dissolution action and moved for an order of payment, which the trial court granted. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) service provider had standing because service provider had an oral contract with defendant and was injured when defendant did not pay; (2) six-year statute of limitations applied to the oral contract because the three-year statute applies only to executory oral contracts (neither party has fully performed and this oral contract was executed (service provider fully performed); and (3) trial court acted within its discretion in ordering defendant to pay service provider.

Worker’s Compensation

Binkowski v. Board of Education – Students assaulted Teacher and injured her. Teacher sued Board, alleging that Board acted “willfully and maliciously,” and intentionally inflicted emotional distress, by instituting a policy that led to the assault because it denied assistance to teachers confronted by violent and disruptive students. Trial court struck the complaint because it did not allege conduct to bring the action within an exception to worker’s compensation exclusivity. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that the complaint failed to allege conduct to bring her claim into the intentional tort exception under either the actual intent standard or the substantial certainty standard.