Purtill v. Cook, 197 Conn.App. 22

Decedent's will gave Edward W. Cook a life estate in the personal residence and appointed him executor; the estate was to operate a charitable herb farm.
The Probate Court removed Cook as executor and terminated his life estate for mismanagement and conflicts of interest, authorizing the successor administrator to seek Cook’s removal from the premises.
Successor administrator George M. Purtill served a notice to quit; Cook failed to vacate and Purtill brought a summary process action. Cook was defaulted for failure to plead and a judgment of possession entered on November 21, 2018.
Cook moved to open the default, applied for a stay of execution, and (purporting to act as counsel) filed a corporate claim of exemption for Caprilands Institute, Inc.; the trial court denied the motion to open, granted a limited 30‑day stay to remove belongings, and dismissed the corporate claim.
After appeal, an automatic appellate stay arose then was vacated by the trial court because Cook failed to post required security; this court later denied Cook’s motion to stay eviction, affecting the appealability/mootness of the stay issue.

Issue	Purtill's Argument	Cook's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Cook’s motion to open the default judgment	Cook failed to articulate a viable defense and did not show mistake, accident, or other reasonable cause under § 52‑212	Cook said he was confused because plaintiff filed two default motions and withdrew one, so he thought both were withdrawn	Denial affirmed: court reasonably found no good defense and no reasonable cause to open the default (abuse of discretion standard)
Whether the December 7, 2018 limited 30‑day stay was improper	Purtill later argued any appellate stay was wrongful because Cook appealed for delay and failed to post bond; trial court vacated the automatic stay for lack of security	Cook challenged the propriety of the limited stay	Dismissed as moot/lacking jurisdiction: intervening events (automatic stay then vacatur and denial of further stay) left no practical relief; also stay issues not properly raised on direct appeal
Whether the court erred in dismissing the corporation’s claim of exemption filed by Cook	A non‑attorney cannot represent a corporation; Cook lacked standing to file on the corporation’s behalf	Cook filed the claim listing himself as the corporation’s attorney	Dismissal affirmed: Cook, not being a licensed attorney, cannot represent the corporation; lacking standing, court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569 (1998) (abuse of discretion standard for opening a default judgment)
Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (2008) (deference to trial court’s exercise of discretion and presumption in favor of its actions)
Bohonnon Law Firm, LLC v. Baxter, 131 Conn. App. 371 (2011) (factors for setting aside default: seriousness, duration, reasons, contumacy, prejudice)
Certo v. Fink, 140 Conn. App. 740 (2013) (non‑attorney may not represent a corporation pro se)
J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Properties, LLC, 309 Conn. 307 (2013) (lack of standing deprives court of subject matter jurisdiction)
Connecticut Assn. of Boards of Education v. Shedd, 197 Conn. 554 (1985) (standing required for court to decide merits)
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton, 88 Conn. App. 523 (2005) (mootness doctrine; no practical relief = loss of jurisdiction)
Wozniak v. Colchester, 193 Conn. App. 842 (2019) (plenary review of mootness question)
Boisvert v. Gavis, 332 Conn. 115 (2019) (limits on reviewing collateral challenges to probate proceedings)
Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Rozbicki, 150 Conn. App. 472 (2014) (procedural rule that stay‑of‑execution issues cannot be raised on direct appeal)