Gladstein v. Goldfield
SC19696
| Conn. | May 16, 2017Background
- Ruth Gladstein sued siblings and others alleging misuse of trust funds and related claims stemming from a 1997 trust amendment.
- Gladstein had filed bankruptcy in 2008 and failed to disclose her interest/claims; those claims belonged to the bankruptcy trustee.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing; Gladstein conceded lack of standing and moved under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-109 to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as plaintiff.
- Trial court denied the substitution motion (finding no mistake) and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Gladstein appealed.
- While her appeal was pending, Gladstein obtained an order from the bankruptcy court abandoning the claim, returning the claims to her.
- The Appellate Court declined to reach the substitution-standard claim, concluding Gladstein induced the error; the Supreme Court dismissed Gladstein’s appeal as moot because she no longer sought substitution and no practical relief could follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Appellate Court should have reviewed the trial court’s standard for denying substitution under § 52-109 | Gladstein: Appellate Court erred by refusing to decide the merits; trial court applied wrong standard | Defs: Issue waived because Gladstein induced the trial court’s ruling and lacked standing | Appeal is moot; no review because trustee abandoned claim and plaintiff no longer seeks substitution |
| Whether appellate relief (remand) could give practical relief to plaintiff | Gladstein: Remand could allow prosecution in her name now that trustee abandoned the claim | Defs: Postjudgment events cannot create a new path to relief where statutory deadlines and procedures govern | Moot — appellate relief would not change plaintiff’s position because she chose not to pursue substitution and abandonment occurred post-judgment |
| Whether failure to disclose in bankruptcy divested Gladstein of standing | Gladstein: (implicitly) sought remedy via substitution and later abandonment | Defs: Undisclosed claims belong to bankruptcy estate; debtor lacks standing | Trial court correctly treated claims as estate property at time suit commenced; standing issue justified dismissal (underlying premise affirmed by mootness ruling) |
| Whether appellate court should invoke supervisory power/plain error to remedy denial of substitution | Gladstein: Requested relief if direct review denied | Defs: No basis; plaintiff induced error and statutory process controls | Appellate Court declined; Supreme Court did not reach merits because appeal moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Burton v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 323 Conn. 668 (Conn. 2016) (mootness implicates subject matter jurisdiction)
- Fairfield Merrittview Ltd. Partnership v. Norwalk, 320 Conn. 535 (Conn. 2016) (proper standard for substitution under § 52-109)
- Assn. Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145 (Conn. 2010) (unscheduled claims become part of bankruptcy estate; debtor lacks standing)
- Williams v. Ragaglia, 261 Conn. 219 (Conn. 2002) (appeal must present live controversy throughout its pendency)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton, 282 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2007) (appellate courts should not decide moot questions)