Gordon v. Gordon
155 A.3d 809
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Alan J. Gordon (self-represented) sued his ex-wife Carol Gordon alleging three tort counts (extortion/statutory theft, fraud, larceny) arising from conduct around their April 18, 2011 dissolution/separation agreement and related restraining-order events.
- Complaint (served May 18, 2014; revised complaint filed March 12, 2015) alleges defendant coerced plaintiff into signing the separation agreement and misrepresented financial information and refused to return personal items.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment (Mar 30, 2015) arguing all tort claims are barred by the three‑year statute of limitations, attaching an affidavit and requesting judicial notice of the dissolution file and prior appellate decision.
- Trial court treated the extortion/larceny allegations as statutory theft claims, concluded § 52‑577’s three‑year period began no later than April 18, 2011 (or Feb 3, 2011 for some acts), and that service on May 18, 2014 was untimely; summary judgment granted.
- Plaintiff appealed, raising only the claim that the statute of limitations defense was waived because defendant had not pleaded it as a special defense; he also attempted other arguments (equitable tolling, fraudulent concealment) but raised them too late.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant waived statute‑of‑limitations defense by not pleading it as a special defense before moving for summary judgment | Gordon: defendant failed to plead SOL as a special defense and thus waived it | Carol: may move for summary judgment any time under Practice Book §17‑44; pleadings need not be closed if no material factual dispute | Court: no plain error; summary judgment properly considered despite SOL not pleaded earlier |
| Whether the tort claims are time‑barred under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52‑577 | Gordon: alleged later discovery/tolling (fee waiver) meant suit timely | Carol: alleged acts occurred by April 18, 2011 (or Feb 3, 2011), so three‑year window expired before service | Court: claims accrued by April 18, 2011 (or earlier) and suit served May 18, 2014 — untimely; SOL bars claims |
| Whether continuing course/ongoing conduct or fraudulent concealment tolled SOL | Gordon: claimed ongoing actions/late discovery (and fee waiver delay) tolled limitations | Carol: no factual predicate or special relationship to support continuing duty or fraudulent concealment | Court: continuing‑course doctrine inapplicable; plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting fraudulent concealment; tolling not applied |
| Whether trial court violated procedure or fairness by considering summary judgment before responsive pleadings closed | Gordon: procedural abnormality deprived him of fair process | Carol: Practice Book allows summary judgment at any time if no scheduling order; courts may consider facts outside complaint | Court: consideration complied with practice rules and precedent; no unfairness or plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Gordon, 148 Conn. App. 59 (Conn. App. 2014) (prior appeal from dissolution used as background/judicial‑notice material)
- Kidder v. Read, 150 Conn. App. 720 (Conn. App. 2014) (§52‑577 accrual is date of act or omission, not discovery)
- Girard v. Weiss, 43 Conn. App. 397 (Conn. App. 1996) (summary judgment may be moved before pleadings closed under predecessor rule; courts may consider facts outside complaint)
- Emmerson v. Super 8 Motel‑Stamford, 59 Conn. App. 462 (Conn. App. 2000) (procedural discussion of summary judgment practice)
- State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278 (Conn. 2009) (plain error doctrine limited to extraordinary cases affecting fairness and integrity)
- Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212 (Conn. 1991) (distinguishing relief to vacate judgments for fraud from independent civil fraud actions)
- Vertex, Inc. v. Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557 (Conn. 2006) (scope of trial court discretion to decide dispositive legal questions outside strict practice‑rule bounds)
- Flannery v. Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC, 128 Conn. App. 507 (Conn. App. 2011) (elements for fraudulent concealment/tolling require factual predicate)