Questell v. Farogh
167 A.3d 492
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Questell sued her landlord, Farogh, for negligence after slipping on exterior stairs on Dec. 18, 2013.
- On Dec. 17, 2014, the court issued an in‑court scheduling order setting a trial management conference (TMC) for Sept. 9, 2015 and other trial dates; reminder notices were issued confirming the TMC and warning that attendance was mandatory.
- Various filings in Aug. 2015 (including a continuance request and notices altering the trial timeline) caused scheduling notices to reflect a court trial on Sept. 22, 2015; none expressly canceled the Sept. 9 TMC.
- Farogh, proceeding pro se, failed to appear at the Sept. 9 TMC; the court entered a default judgment against her and later awarded damages after a Sept. 22 hearing in damages.
- Farogh moved to open the default judgment, claiming she mistakenly believed the Sept. 9 TMC had been removed from the schedule and that she had a defense; the trial court denied the motion and Farogh appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Questell) | Defendant's Argument (Farogh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to open default judgment | Default appropriate: Farogh received scheduling order and notices; she failed to attend mandatory TMC despite warnings | Farogh was prevented by mistake from attending the TMC because multiple notices and motions led her (as a nonlawyer) to believe the TMC was off the schedule | No abuse of discretion; Farogh admitted she was present when TMC was scheduled and received confirming notice; no evidence of cancellation or inquiry to court; failure was negligence, not mistake |
| Whether a sufficient defense existed at time of default such that judgment should be opened | Plaintiff argued discovery and procedural history justified proceeding; also noted defendant ignored requests for admissions | Farogh claimed she had a valid defense on liability | Court did not reach merits of the defense because Farogh failed the statutory second prong (prevented by mistake/accident); motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillis v. Gillis, 214 Conn. 336 (1990) (standard of review: motion to open is within trial court’s discretion)
- Eastern Elevator Co. v. Scalzi, 193 Conn. 128 (1984) (statutory framework for opening default judgments)
- Pantlin & Chananie Dev. Corp. v. Hartford Cement & Bldg. Supply Co., 196 Conn. 233 (1985) (two‑prong test: good defense and prevention by mistake/accident)
- Woodruff v. Riley, 78 Conn. App. 466 (2003) (courts should not open defaults where defendants received actual notice and ignored proceedings)
- Kaplan & Jellinghaus, P.C. v. Newfield Yacht Sales, Inc., 179 Conn. 290 (1979) (negligence/ignoring documents is not grounds to vacate)
- Oliphant v. Heath, 170 Conn. App. 360 (2017) (failure to attend a pretrial conference may be mere negligence when notice was given)
- Multilingual Consultant Assocs., LLC v. Ngoh, 163 Conn. App. 725 (2016) (self‑represented litigants are given latitude but must comply with procedural rules)