Oxford House at Yale v. Gilligan
10 A.3d 52
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Oxford House at Yale is a self-governing sober house in New Haven that leases a residence and is run by resident votes, including expulsions.
- Vincent Gilligan, a member-resident, was expelled after a vote on April 20, 2008 following a dispute over a room inspection.
- Despite a notice to quit on July 30, 2008, Gilligan remained in possession; the plaintiff filed a summary process action on August 12, 2008 seeking possession.
- Plaintiff alleged that Gilligan’s right to occupy terminated by a member vote in accordance with the house’s rules and procedures.
- Gilligan answered with four defenses, including procedural defects of the expulsion vote and various statutory/administrative defenses.
- The trial court found the vote valid but ultimately held that the plaintiff was exempt from the summary process statutes under § 47a-2(a)(1), and granted judgment for Gilligan; the plaintiff appealed arguing the exemption was not pleaded and improperly relied on.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exemption from summary process was pleaded | Gilligan was not prejudiced because exemption was litigated. | The exemption was not pleaded and was not properly litigated. | Exemption not pleaded; improper basis for judgment; remanded |
| Whether the plaintiff qualified as an institution exempt from summary process under § 47a-2(a)(1) | Oxford House provided residence incidental to a service and thus exempt. | No proper facts were developed to prove exemption; the trial court erred. | Court improperly concluded exemption without facts litigated |
| Whether the trial court’s reliance on unpleaded exemption affected due process | Exemption argument was a permissible litigation issue once raised. | Due process requires proper notice and an opportunity to develop the record. | Due process concerns; improper basis for decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Landry v. Spitz, 102 Conn.App. 34 (2007) (pleading notice and prejudice standards applied in postjudgment context)
- Tedesco v. Stamford, 215 Conn. 450 (1990) (pleadings must provide notice of issues; broad, realistic reading of pleadings)
- Burke v. Oxford House of Oregon Chapter V, 196 Or.App. 726 (2004) (framework for exemption analysis; services vs. avoidance of statutes)
- Burke v. Oxford House of Oregon Chapter V, 341 Or. 82 (2006) (revised, upholding exemption framework)
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48 (1983) (due process when issues of fact determine jurisdiction require hearing)
- In re DeLeon J., 290 Conn. 371 (2009) (subject matter jurisdiction; raise issues to preserve rights)
- Vanwhy v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn.App. 1 (2010) (subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time)
- Altomari v. Altomari, 121 Conn.App. 235 (2010) (notice and sufficiency of pleadings; broad reading)