Faile v. Town of Stratford
172 A.3d 206
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Three plaintiffs (Faile, Lange, and N759ZD, LLC) appealed municipal tax assessments of aircraft hangars; appeals consolidated for a pretrial settlement conference.
- Court ordered attendance: trial attorney, attorney with "ultimate authority" to settle (if different), plaintiffs or corporate principals with ultimate settlement authority, any trial witnesses, and "every piece of paper" to be offered in evidence (later clarified as required).
- Lange (principal of the LLC and counsel of record for some matters) was hospitalized and did not attend. Attorney Grocki and Faile attended; Grocki repeatedly asserted he had authority but also stated he would not settle above a $9,000 assessment. Grocki had electronic copies of documents on his laptop but not printed paper.
- The town moved for nonsuit for failure to comply with the pretrial order; the trial court granted nonsuits for all four appeals (finding lack of ultimate authority present and missing physical documents).
- Plaintiffs moved to open the nonsuits; the trial court denied the motions. Plaintiffs appealed; the appellate court reversed the nonsuits and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could nonsuit for failure to have a person with "ultimate authority" at pretrial | Faile: he personally attended and thus had ultimate authority; LLC/Grocki: Grocki had authority to settle | Town: Lange (principal) had ultimate authority and was absent; Grocki’s authority was limited (e.g., $9,000 cap), so requirement unmet | Court: Faile present and entitled to refuse settlement — finding of violation was clearly erroneous; nonsuit against Faile reversed |
| Whether having electronic copies satisfied the order to "bring every piece of paper" | Plaintiffs: electronic copies on Grocki’s laptop complied with the order | Town: court enforced requirement for physical papers | Court: order did not expressly require physical copies; electronic availability satisfied the requirement — finding of violation was clearly erroneous |
| Whether Grocki’s concession that, under a strict reading, he lacked ultimate authority justified nonsuit for the LLC | LLC: no clear error; even if authority lacking, nonsuit was disproportionate given Lange’s hospitalization | Town: Grocki’s admission meant noncompliance warranted sanction | Court: appellate finds no clear error on the factual concession but holds nonsuit disproportionate because Lange was hospitalized and there was no willful contempt — nonsuit against LLC reversed |
| Standard of review for sanctioning nonsuit for noncompliance with court orders | Plaintiffs: apply Millbrook three-part framework (clarity, violation, proportionality) | Town: apply traditional abuse of discretion standard | Court: Millbrook is appropriate but reaches reversal even under traditional abuse-of-discretion; requires clear-order and clearly-erroneous-finding review and proportionality analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (clarifies three-part test for sanctions: order clarity, actual violation, proportionality)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mottolese, 261 Conn. 521 (refuses sanctions where party validly exercises right to trial; cautions against coercive pressure to settle)
- Stratford v. Jacobelli, 317 Conn. 863 (property characterization of hangars; procedural background relevance)
- Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. East Windsor, 324 Conn. 528 (taxpayer’s right to trial de novo on assessment appeals)
- Breezy Knoll Assn., Inc. v. Morris, 286 Conn. 766 (discusses trial de novo in tax appeals)