216 Conn.App. 883
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Self-represented plaintiff Sheri Speer sued the City of Norwich (filed June 15, 2021) seeking injunctive relief to stop a tax foreclosure auction of property she claimed to own until Connecticut’s COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, alleging the restrictions depressed auction prices and amounted to an unconstitutional taking.
- The City moved to dismiss (arguing, among other points, the prior pending action doctrine); at the Nov. 1, 2021 hearing the court was told the property had been sold and the sale approved.
- On Nov. 29, 2021 the trial court (Young, J.) granted the City’s motion, finding the case moot because the sale had been approved; Speer appealed.
- After the appeal was filed and COVID restrictions were lifted, the successful bidder failed to consummate the sale and the deposit was forfeited (May 26, 2022), leaving the property unsold and the next auction to occur without pandemic restrictions.
- This court ordered supplemental briefing on mootness given the changed circumstances; Speer relied on the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception, but did not persuasively establish its three required elements.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because no practical relief could be granted and the repetition exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / subject-matter jurisdiction | Speer argued the matter was not moot because the sale allegedly occurred under COVID restrictions that depressed price; sought injunction and damages. | City noted the sale was approved at the time of the dismissal hearing and later the failed sale left future auctions to occur without COVID restrictions, so no practical relief was possible. | Dismissed as moot: no practical relief available because next auction will occur without COVID restrictions. |
| Capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception | Speer contended the issue could recur and thus should be reviewable despite mootness. | City argued the pandemic restrictions were lifted and the dispute was not of inherently limited duration likely to evade appellate review in the ordinary course. | Exception not satisfied: plaintiff failed to show the three required elements (limited duration/likely to moot appeals, reasonable likelihood of recurrence, public importance adequately shown). |
| Due process claim (Fifth Amendment) | Speer claimed denial of due process by not enjoining sale proceedings conducted under impaired conditions. | City maintained mootness and lack of relief; also procedural posture undermined claim. | Not reached on merits; claim dismissed as moot and not adjudicated. |
| Prior pending action doctrine | Speer disputed that prior pending action barred her suit. | City argued the foreclosure action and prior attempts to intervene made the matter procedurally barred. | Trial court relied on mootness; prior-pending doctrine raised but dismissal rested on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (mootness). |
Key Cases Cited
- Martocchio v. Savoir, 156 Conn. App. 224 (Conn. App. 2015) (mootness is a justiciability threshold; appellate relief requires practical relief and an ongoing controversy).
- Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370 (Conn. 1995) (sets three-part test for the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness).
- Norwich v. Brenton Family Trust, 202 Conn. App. 905 (Conn. App. 2021) (prior appellate decision affirming foreclosure judgment and remanding for sale).