Advance Release Opinions – Appellate Court – August 24

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about administrative law, civil procedure, and foreclosure.

Administrative Law

Blossom’s Escort Service, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act – It’s not what you think – or at least it wasn’t what I first thought. The escorts are actually flag cars for oversized vehicles. One of the flag car drivers asserted that Blossom’s failed to pay him the proper amount of unemployment. Blossom’s had not reported any wages for the driver. Administrator found that Blossom’s owed some $27,000 for unpaid unemployment compensation contributions. Administrative and judicial appeals ensued. Issue was whether an amendment to the Act exempting escort car drivers from the definition of “employee” applied retroactively. Appellate Court found that it did not, so trial court properly dismissed Blossom’s appeal from the board’s decision.

Civil Procedure

GEICO v. Barros – Statutes of limitation did not apply to GEICO’s equitable subrogation claim because statutes of limitation do not apply to equitable claims.

Teodoro v. Bristol – Part I of the opinion explains what you need to do to have deposition excerpts considered on a summary judgment motion. In sum, you are all set if you submit the excerpts, the “deposition cover page, the page on which the court reporter certified the accuracy of the entire deposition transcript as he transcribed it, and the page on which the deponent swore that she had read the entire deposition transcript and certified to its truth and accuracy, so transcribed ….” Part II of the opinion confirms that the judge has discretion to decline to consider surreply submissions, even after the judge set a deadline for such submissions.

Sovereign Bank v. Harrison – This one is a little difficult to summarize clearly so you may have to read it to get a full understanding. Withdrawal of an action disposes of special defenses, but any counterclaim remains pending. In this mortgage foreclosure action, Harrison asserted a special defense that Sovereign did not properly account for her payments. After Sovereign withdrew the action before trial, Harrison filed a motion to amend her answer to assert a counterclaim. Trial court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider that motion since there was no counterclaim pending at the time of Sovereign’s withdrawal. Harrison then moved to restore the special defense to the docket, arguing that it was properly considered a counterclaim. Trial court granted that motion. Appellate Court reversed because the special defense could not be considered a counterclaim.

Foreclosure

Glastonbury v. Sakon – Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Glastonbury more than $140,000 in attorney’s fees for prosecuting a tax foreclosure. Nice work if you can get it.

Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc. v. Squillante – Trial court did not impermissibly shorten the appeal period by making the law date the same day as the last day to appeal. The time to appeal terminates when the appellate clerk’s office closes at 5 pm, but the law date continues to run until midnight. So, defendant had her full twenty-day period to appeal before the law date expired.