234 Conn.App. 834
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Berglass (plaintiff), owner of property adjacent to Dworkins’ (defendants’) lot, sued after the defendants constructed an inground pool near a contiguous seawall without undergoing required coastal site plan review and engineered design.
- Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (including halting construction, restoring buffer area, reorienting the pool) and a motion for a temporary injunction to stop construction pending resolution.
- Defendants objected, arguing the motion for a temporary injunction was moot because pool construction was completed, and thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that motion.
- At a hearing the trial court limited the proceeding to the question whether the motion for a temporary injunction was moot and repeatedly told the parties it would decide merits at a later trial; supplemental briefs were ordered and a merits trial was scheduled.
- The court later issued a memorandum of decision dismissing the entire complaint as moot (and made factual findings that anchoring or reorienting the pool was impractical) without an evidentiary hearing; the court denied reconsideration and the plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate court reversed: the trial court improperly dismissed the whole complaint sua sponte without notice/opportunity to be heard and its factual findings lacked any evidentiary support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether it was lawful for the trial court to dismiss the entire complaint sua sponte as moot after limiting the hearing to the temporary injunction motion | Berglass: court told parties it would only decide mootness of the temporary injunction; dismissal of the entire complaint without notice denied due process | Dworkin: mootness can deprive court of jurisdiction over injunctive relief and the court may raise jurisdictional mootness sua sponte | Court: dismissal of entire complaint sua sponte was improper because court explicitly limited proceedings to the motion and plaintiff had no notice or opportunity to address dismissal of the complaint; reversed. |
| Whether the court’s factual findings (anchoring/reorienting pool impractical, anchors would be dislodged, anchoring would damage seawall) were supported by evidence | Berglass: findings reflect factual determinations made without a hearing or any evidence; therefore clearly erroneous | Dworkin: (implicitly) practical relief was unavailable and such remediation would be impractical | Court: findings were made without an evidentiary hearing or record support, were clearly erroneous, and therefore vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Pennymac Loan Servs., LLC, 205 Conn. App. 189 (Conn. App. 2021) (court may not decide sua sponte on a ground not raised without giving parties notice and opportunity to present evidence)
- Cameron v. Santiago, 223 Conn. App. 836 (Conn. App. 2024) (court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte but must give notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (Conn. 2009) (when jurisdictional facts are disputed, due process requires a trial-like hearing to present and contest evidence)
- We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy, 150 Conn. App. 576 (Conn. App. 2014) (mootness doctrine: case becomes moot when intervening circumstances eliminate practical relief)
- Pritchard v. Pritchard, 103 Conn. App. 276 (Conn. App. 2007) (parties must have fair notice that court may decide an issue so they can prepare to respond)