125 Conn. App. 242
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- PDPA borrowed $1.3 million, secured by two parcels of land; Patricia and Ahmed executed a guaranty; note matured May 8, 2008.
- Foreclosure filed July 28, 2008 for PDPA default; PDPA defaulted on disclosure of defense; multiple appearances by PDPA's counsel occurred.
- Ahmed acquired PDPA’s interest and was later substituted as owner/party; plaintiff amended complaint to reflect Ahmed’s ownership.
- Plaintiff withdrew complaint against the defendants, but defendants’ counterclaims remained pending; Ahmed later pursued new ownership and defense filings.
- June 29, 2009: court granted summary judgment for foreclosure by sale; subsequent motions to reconsider were denied; appeal followed.
- The court held that the counterclaims remained live even after withdrawal of the deficiency claim, and thus summary judgment against the defendants on those counterclaims was appropriate.
- The court denied the pro se bias claims and considered that PDPA’s representation issues did not bind Ahmed and Patricia on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper against guarantors after withdrawal | Danzig moved on counterclaims; withdrawal of deficiency claim did not negate counterclaims | Guarantors were effectively removed from the case; no live claim against them | Summary judgment upheld against the defendants on their counterclaims |
| Whether summary judgment/foreclosure complied with Practice Book §17-44 | No need for permission since pleadings not closed; amended complaint naming Ahmed as owner | Motion filed after assignment for trial; mandatory permission required | Court did not err; §17-44 not applicable given circumstances; judgment affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff’s appraisal issue required live testimony | Appraiser's report sufficient; no need for opposing appraiser | Defendants disputed appraisal; needed current appraisal or testimony | Issue not adequately briefed; review declined |
| Whether the court was prejudiced against Ahmed/pro se parties | Claims of bias unsupported by record | Judge’s statements showed prejudice | No merit; no appearance of impropriety established |
Key Cases Cited
- Antonino v. Johnson, 113 Conn.App. 72 (2009) (review of summary judgment standard; plenary standard of review)
- Solano v. Calegari, 108 Conn.App. 731 (2008) (record review; adequacy of transcript; standard for review)
- Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council, 286 Conn. 57 (2008) (adequacy of briefing; waiver of issues not adequately briefed)
- Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut, 34 Conn.App. 543 (1994) (pro se representation limits; corporate representation rules)
- Watrous v. Watrous, 108 Conn. App. 813 (2008) (bias standard; appearance of impropriety; canon 3(c)(1))