142 Conn. App. 14
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff James Little sued Mackeyboy Auto, LLC for alleged violations of the Retail Installment Sales Financing Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Creditors’ Collection Practices Act; service of process was made by marshal on the defendant’s agent Bill/William McNeilly as general manager; defendant did not appear and was defaulted on December 23, 2010, with damages judgment entered April 13, 2011; plaintiff mailed default and judgment motions to the defendant at its New Haven address; defendant appeared on April 15, 2011 and moved to open the default on May 12, 2011; the marshal’s officer’s return was later amended to indicate Billy McNeilly, also known as William McNeilly, accepted service; the court denied the motion to open on March 19, 2012; the defendant paid the fee and refiled to open on June 13, 2011; the trial court held service was proper and that the defendant had actual notice of the action
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on the defendant was proper | Little argues service on McNeilly as general manager complied with § 62-57 (c) | Mackeyboy Auto contends no one named Bill Mackeyboy existed; improper service voids jurisdiction | No abuse; service proper under § 62-57 (c) as general manager |
| Whether service on the registered agent exclusivity applies | Plaintiff maintains no exclusive method required; general manager service suffices | Defendant asserts service must be on registered agent | No exclusive service method required; service on general manager valid under statute |
| Whether defendant had a valid defense not raised due to mistake or accident | Defendant failed to show lack of notice or valid defense; defense not shown to arise from mistake | Defendant claims a valid defense existed not raised due to mistake or reasonable cause | Defendant failed to prove defense not raised due to mistake or reasonable cause |
| Whether defendant had actual notice of the action | Plaintiff certified copies of default and judgment motions were mailed to defendant; notice established | Defense did not claim lack of notice; but argued improper service | Court reasonably found actual notice; no basis to open judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. The Contracting Group, LLC, 127 Conn. App. 45 (2011) (two-pronged test for opening a default judgment: good defense and not raised by mistake)
- Woodruff v. Riley, 78 Conn. App. 466 (2003) (open default judgments where actual notice was received and ignored court authority)