161 Conn.App. 475
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Owner Milan Cais possessed property at 27 Powerhouse Road, East Haddam; a 2008 fire destroyed the main structure and debris/open foundation remained.
- Town issued a Notice of Unsafe Structure under §115 of the State Building Code (adopting 2003 IBC §115.1) on April 4, 2012, alleging the property was unsafe.
- Town sued (Aug 20, 2013) seeking a permanent injunction ordering Cais to remediate code violations and authorization for town corrective action if he failed to comply.
- Cais filed a counterclaim alleging the town caused the unsafe condition by bulldozing the property and removing fencing; the trial court granted the town’s motion to strike that counterclaim and Cais did not replead.
- Town moved for summary judgment (filed Sept 10, 2014); after a rescheduled hearing the court allowed Cais (pro se) to speak but he filed no written opposition or affidavits and conceded the property’s poor condition.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the town, ordered Cais to demolish standing walls and fill the foundation, and authorized the town to enter and complete the work if Cais did not comply; Cais appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Darin/town) | Defendant's Argument (Cais) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not sufficiently apprising pro se defendant of summary judgment obligations | Town argued summary judgment appropriate because pleadings and evidence showed no genuine issue: Cais owned property and it violated §115 | Cais argued court should have advised him what to file so he could present evidence that town caused the violation (removal of fencing/bulldozing) | Court affirmed: judge gave opportunities and solicitous treatment; Cais conceded core facts and filed no opposition, so no genuine issue raised |
| Whether pro se status entitled Cais to additional procedural protections or relaxed standards at summary judgment | Town relied on standard summary judgment burden and that pro se litigants must still meet procedural rules | Cais contended his self-representation required more court guidance to preserve due process | Court held pro se litigants get some latitude but no license to ignore procedural rules; judge’s assistance was sufficient |
| Whether grant of motion to strike counterclaim was an appealable denial of due process | Town argued motion to strike was procedural and not an appealable final judgment on counterclaim | Cais argued he was denied due process when counterclaim struck (as that counterclaim asserted town caused violation) | Court declined to address because order striking counterclaim was not a final, appealable judgment on the counterclaim |
| Whether Cais’ appellate due process claim merits review | Town argued issues inadequately briefed; relied on record showing Cais conceded the violation | Cais asserted two due process violations (counterclaim strike and summary judgment) but provided no legal authority or analysis | Court deemed claim inadequately briefed and abandoned; declined substantive review |
Key Cases Cited
- New London County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Sielski, 159 Conn. App. 650 (connecticut appellate court) (summary judgment standard and plenary review)
- Bombero v. Bombero, 160 Conn. App. 118 (connecticut appellate court) (moving party’s burden and opposing party’s obligations at summary judgment)
- Tonghini v. Tonghini, 152 Conn. App. 231 (connecticut appellate court) (treatment of self-represented litigants; latitude limited by procedural rules)
- Turn of River Fire Dept., Inc. v. Stamford, 159 Conn. App. 708 (connecticut appellate court) (inadequate briefing and abandonment of appellate issues)
- Pellecchia v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 139 Conn. App. 88 (connecticut appellate court) (motion to strike not appealable as final judgment absent judgment on stricken pleading)