213 Conn.App. 739
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- In 2012 defendant Aniello Dizenzo, on behalf of 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC, executed a lease for a 2013 Mercedes; the dealer assigned the lease to Mercedes‑Benz Financial (plaintiff).
- Plaintiff sued defendants in January 2017 for unpaid lease payments; neither defendant appeared and default was entered September 1, 2017.
- Plaintiff moved for judgment; the court rendered judgment for $11,734.61 (plus 8% postjudgment interest) on May 13, 2019; notice of judgment was sent May 28, 2019.
- Defendants filed a motion to open the default judgment on July 29, 2019 (within four months) with an affidavit saying they mistakenly thought the matter was resolved and claimed defenses arising from alleged vehicle defects.
- At the September 16, 2019 hearing counsel asserted for the first time that defendants were told (by the dealer or plaintiff) the lawsuit would not be pursued; no documentary proof or affidavit support for that claim had been filed.
- The trial court denied the motion as "untimely and . . . has no basis." The appellate court affirmed, holding the court reached the merits and properly found no reasonable cause to set aside the default; it also upheld denial of a continuance/evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to open default judgment | Defendants failed to show they were prevented by mistake, accident, or other reasonable cause; their claimed defenses are against the dealer, not plaintiff | Motion timely and met the two‑prong test: good defenses existed and failure to appear was due to reasonable reliance on representations that the suit would not be pursued | Affirmed: motion filed within four months but defendants failed second prong — no reasonable cause shown and affidavit lacked the alleged representation |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance/evidentiary hearing to present testimony in support of motion to open | No statute or rule required an evidentiary hearing; the court properly exercised discretion given defendants’ deficient verified motion | Needed a one‑week continuance to bring defendant to testify about promised non‑prosecution and to supply evidence | Affirmed: defendants requested only oral argument, their verified motion did not plead the alleged representation or adequate reasons; court not required to continue for a claim not raised in the motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. Mackeyboy Auto, LLC, 142 Conn. App. 14 (Conn. App. 2013) (articulates the two‑prong test for opening default judgments and that negligence alone is insufficient)
- Berzins v. Berzins, 105 Conn. App. 648 (Conn. App. 2008) (reliance on alleged withdrawal insufficient where defendant did nothing after proper service)
- Disturco v. Gates in New Canaan, LLC, 204 Conn. App. 526 (Conn. App. 2021) (defendant’s negligence does not constitute reasonable cause under § 52‑212)
- DeRose v. Jason Robert’s, Inc., 191 Conn. App. 781 (Conn. App. 2019) (whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is within the trial court’s discretion)