Barclays Bank Delaware v. Bamford, 213 Conn.App. 1

Barclays Bank Delaware sued Diana Bamford for unpaid charges on a credit account, seeking $5,661.81 plus costs.
Plaintiff served a demand for disclosure of defense under Practice Book §13-19; Bamford did not file a disclosure.
Judge Frechette granted plaintiff’s motion for default for failure to disclose; Bamford then sought to disqualify Judge Frechette, alleging past hostility between her counsel and Frechette (dating ~1997–2007).
Presiding Judge Suarez held a hearing, denied the disqualification motion (on collateral-estoppel, timeliness, and merits grounds), and later presided over a damages hearing.
At damages hearing the court admitted Barclays’ monthly billing statements through testimony of Michael Noonan (recovery support lead); Bamford objected under the business‑records hearsay exception.
Court entered judgment for plaintiff for $5,661.81 plus costs; Bamford appealed on three grounds: denial of disqualification, improper default under §13-19, and improper admission of the account statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge Frechette should be disqualified	Frechette’s past association with his father’s firm and prior dealings with defense counsel do not show bias	Past animosity between defense counsel and Frechette’s former firm and an old conversation create appearance of impropriety	Denial affirmed — no objective basis shown for reasonable doubt of impartiality
Whether Practice Book §13-19 applied so default for failure to disclose a defense was proper	Credit‑card account actions constitute actions "upon any written contract" because each charge implicates a unilateral promise to repay under the card agreement	§13-19 does not apply because the complaint is not based on a written contract	Denial reversed — §13-19 applies; default was properly entered
Whether billing statements were admissible under business‑records exception	Statements were business records; Noonan’s testimony about procedures, review, accuracy and mailing furnished foundation	Noonan was not the bookkeeper who created the records and thus lacked foundation	Admission affirmed — witness had sufficient personal knowledge and foundation under §52-180/Conn. Code Evid. §8-4
Whether adverse rulings alone support disqualification	Plaintiff: adverse rulings do not evidence bias	Defendant: history of rulings and disputes show continuing animosity	Court: adverse rulings and stale disputes are insufficient to show bias; motion fails on merits

State v. Milner, 325 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2017) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and objective test for judicial disqualification)
Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman, 328 Conn. 586 (Conn. 2018) (rules/practice interpretation follows statutory principles)
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88 (Conn. 2008) (non‑creator witness with supervisory knowledge can establish business‑records foundation)
DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 21 Conn. App. 582 (Conn. App. 1990) (vague, unverified assertions insufficient to support recusal)
Bank of America v. Jarczyk, 268 B.R. 17 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2001) (each credit‑card use treated as unilateral contract — cardholder’s promise to repay)
State v. Bermudez, 95 Conn. App. 577 (Conn. App. 2006) (person who did not create record may nonetheless lay foundation for business records exception)