Advance Release Opinions – August 18

Connecticut Appellate Court

Child Support

Commissioner of Social Services v. Zarnetski – Family support magistrate dismissed petition for child support because the commissioner did not submit the putative father’s acknowledgment of paternity that was executed in Massachusetts. Commissioner appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed for the same reason. Appellate Court reversed, finding that family support magistrate acted in contravention of CGS §§ 46b-172 and 46b-215 by requiring the commissioner to submit the acknowledgment.

Summary Judgment Procedure / Appellate Procedure

Windsor Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Reliable Mechanical Contractors, LLC – In this action to collect on a note and guarantee, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to plaintiff, concluding that the defendant had presented evidence sufficient to create a fact issue as to whether defendant had signed the loan documents. As to the trial court’s order dismissing defendant’s counterclaims, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal because the trial court specified two independent grounds for its decision and defendant challenged only one ground. Absent challenge to both grounds, the Appellate Court could not afford the defendant any meaningful relief.

Renaissance Management Company, Inc. v. Barnes – Summary process action to evict a tenant, who asserted a defense of retaliatory eviction under CGS § 47a-20. Trial court granted tenant summary judgment on that ground. Landlord appealed. After oral argument but before the Appellate Court rendered a decision, the parties advised the court that the tenant had surrendered possession. Since landlord was seeking possession, and had obtained it, Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the circumstances did not fit the mootness exceptions for “capable of repetition, yet evading review” or “collateral consequences.”

Medical Malpractice

Procaccini v. Lawrence and Memorial Hospital, Inc. – Plaintiff alleged that his decedent presented to the hospital with a methadone overdose, which, according to plaintiff, required the hospital to monitor her for at least 24 hours for signs of potentially fatal methadone toxicity. The hospital discharged decedent after four and a half hours. She subsequently died from methadone toxicity within what would have been the 24 hour period. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant claimed that there was insufficient evidence that the decedent had initially presented with a methadone overdose so there was insufficient evidence that the defendant had a 24 hour monitoring duty. Defendant also claimed that there is no duty to monitor unless the patient is admitted to the hospital and there was insufficient evidence that the decedent met the hospital’s admission criteria. Appellate Court affirmed in a lengthy opinion too factually detailed to summarize here.

Personal Jurisdiction / Promissory Estoppel

TD Bank, N.A. v. Salce – Action to recover on a promissory note. Defendant owned property in Connecticut but lived in Florida. He claimed that service was improper because, although the marshal left the process with the secretary of state and mailed it to defendant by certified mail, he had to actually receive the mailing for service to be good and he never had. Trial court denied his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Later, defendant claimed that his promissory estoppel special defense – asserting that plaintiff had reneged on a promise to modify the loan – required the court to deny plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Trial court granted summary judgment. Appellate Court affirmed, noting that under CGS § 52-59b(c) sufficiency of service did not depend on receipt. Plaintiff complied with the statute when the marshal left the process with the secretary of state and sent it by certified mail to defendant’s Florida address. As to the promissory estoppel special defense, the Appellate Court noted that the defendant had not established a genuine issue of material fact as to reliance because defendant had stopped paying the note three years before there was any discussion of a modification.

Foreclosure

Rockstone Capital, LLC v. Sanzo – This case, involving cross-appeals, has a messy factual and procedural background. In a nutshell, plaintiff first obtained a judgment of personal liability against the defendants and filed a judgment lien against their home. Defendants later defaulted on their payments and the parties entered into a forbearance agreement that was secured by a mortgage on the home. Defendants defaulted on the forbearance agreement and plaintiff commenced an action to foreclose the judgment liens. Plaintiff later amended its complaint to foreclose only on the mortgage. The trial court concluded that the mortgage was void as against public policy because it eliminated the statutory homestead exemption where the judgment liens did not. The trial court also concluded that plaintiff could foreclose the judgment liens as they were subject to the homestead exemption. As to plaintiff’s appeal of the invalidity of the mortgage, the Appellate Court reversed, finding that the mortgage was not void because it was a consensual lien not subject to the homestead exemption. The Appellate Court also reversed as to defendants’ appeal of the ruling allowing plaintiff to foreclose the judgment liens, finding that the complaint limited the issues in the case to foreclosure of the mortgage, not the judgment liens.