Bohonnon Law Firm, LLC v. Baxter
131 Conn. App. 371
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Prejudgment remedy granted for $20,000 and plaintiff obtained attachment against Baxter’s property at 69 Neck Road.
- Plaintiff served a writ of summons and complaint via a nonform writ of attachment, with service and return dates in December 2008 and December 2009 issues.
- Defendant filed multiple motions: to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to open the default, and to discharge attachment; plaintiff opposed.
- Court found service proper and return dates fixed; default entered for failure to plead; defendant later sought to open the default and set damages hearing.
- Hearing in damages held; court awarded plaintiff $19,376.69 plus costs; defendant appeals on several grounds including due process and attorney’s fees.
- Defendant argues improper lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to open default, curtailment of damages defense, improper attorney’s fees award, and denial of due process rights; court affirms judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied dismissal for lack of jurisdiction | Baxter waived personal jurisdiction challenges by appearance | Writ and service defective; jurisdiction lacking | Personal jurisdiction not lacking; issue waived by appearance |
| Whether the court properly denied opening the default for failure to plead | No abuse of discretion; defendant did not plead timely | Good cause to open default due to procedural irregularities | Court acted within discretion; no abuse in denying opening of default |
| Whether the court curtailed defendant’s defense on damages in violation of due process | Defendant did not adequately brief due process claim | Due process rights violated by limited cross-examination/defense on damages | Claim inadequately briefed; not reviewed |
| Whether the attorney’s fees award was proper given due process concerns | Fees supported by affidavit; proper evidentiary showing | Cross-examination of affiant denied; due process issue | Not reviewable due to inadequate briefing; record supports fee award |
| Whether the court protected defendant’s due process rights overall | Record shows compliance with procedural rules | Multiple procedural irregularities and restrictions | Claim not sufficiently briefed; affirmed judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- Hillman v. Greenwich, 217 Conn. 520 (1991) (personal jurisdiction concerns; statutory prerequisites affect jurisdiction)
- Pitchell v. Hartford, 247 Conn. 422 (1999) (waiver of lack of personal jurisdiction after appearance; time limits)
- Snowdon v. Grillo, 114 Conn.App. 131 (2009) (when to apply 17-32 vs 17-42 for opening defaults; hearing in damages timing)
- Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456 (2004) (evidentiary burden for attorney’s fees; need statement of services)
- Arcano v. Board of Education, 81 Conn.App. 761 (2004) (right to evidentiary showing on fees; protect opposing party’s ability to litigate)