202 Conn.App. 487
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Seaport commenced nine foreclosure actions against Sheri Speer and sought appointment of a receiver for rents.
- Edward Bona, an attorney, was appointed receiver by agreement; he initially represented Speer but later withdrew and was replaced by a substitute receiver.
- Bona was ordered to file final accounting reports and to pay over any unaccounted-for sums; the trial court refused to accept his reports and entered an order for payment regarding missing funds.
- After a prior writ of error by Bona was dismissed on the merits, Judge Cosgrove granted Seaport’s motion for a protective order barring Bona from issuing discovery without leave and held Bona personally liable for $11,903.47.
- Bona filed a writ of error asserting multiple claims (e.g., failure to consider evidence, improper monetary liability, denial of motions to disqualify counsel and judge, inadequate notice/due process, and alleged fraud on the court).
- The appellate court dismissed the writ because Bona’s brief and appendix were noncompliant with the rules and inadequately briefed, rendering meaningful review impossible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protective order and discovery restriction; sanctions/personal liability | Bona argued the court wrongly barred his discovery and improperly held him liable for funds he never collected | Seaport argued Bona’s filings and appendix were incomprehensible and noncompliant with appellate rules; court should not review | Court declined to review; writ dismissed for inadequate briefing and noncompliant appendix |
| Failure to account / monetary liability order | Bona claimed the court ignored evidence and ordered payment despite him never collecting the money | Seaport maintained the record supports the payment order and Bona failed to present a cogent record on appeal | Held abandoned for failure to brief and cite the record adequately; no review |
| Motions to disqualify opposing counsel and judge | Bona argued counsel Skaats and Judge Koletsky should have been disqualified | Seaport opposed disqualification; argued issues were not properly briefed for review | Court refused to reach merits; claims deemed abandoned due to inadequate briefing |
| Due process / notice and fraud on the court / plain error | Bona alleged inadequate notice, procedural defects, and alleged the court ratified fraud | Seaport contended these are conclusory, unsupported, and not properly presented on appeal | Court declined to review; claims abandoned for lack of coherent briefing and record support |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688 (2016) (appellate court need not review inadequately briefed issues; analysis required)
- Parnoff v. Mooney, 132 Conn. App. 512 (2011) (appellate court will not perform legal research for poorly briefed claims)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 266 Conn. 108 (2003) (adequate briefing is necessary to avoid abandoning an issue on appeal)
- Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Speer, 177 Conn. App. 1 (2017) (background appellate decision addressing appointment of receiver and prior proceedings)