State v. Prucker
161 A.3d 644
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Tammy Wright received $10,318.60 in unreimbursed public assistance; the state asserted a statutory lien under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 17b-93 and 17b-94 on proceeds of her personal-injury settlement.
- American Legal Services, LLC (defendant) represented Wright on contingency and settled her claim for $12,900.
- Wright had obtained a $500 loan (repaid $1,000 from settlement) from Peachtree Funding to replace a stolen vehicle; defendant treated $500 of the $1,000 repayment as a deductible "expense connected with the cause of action."
- Defendant remitted $2,647.21 (50% of its computed net proceeds) then an additional $250 after revising the accounting; the state demanded the remaining $250 (50% of the disputed $500 deduction).
- The state moved for summary judgment arguing the loan-repayment cost was not an "expense connected with the cause of action" under § 17b-94(a); the trial court granted summary judgment for the state and awarded the remaining $250 plus interest and costs.
- On appeal, the defendant challenged (1) that pleadings were not closed, (2) characterization of the claim as conversion, and (3) factual dispute over the proper calculation of net settlement proceeds and whether the loan cost was a deductible litigation expense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleadings had to be closed before summary judgment | No; summary judgment may be granted absent closed pleadings unless trial scheduled or a scheduling order exists | Pleadings were not closed, so summary judgment improper | Court: No requirement here; summary judgment permissible (pleadings need not be closed) |
| Whether the state's claim depended on common-law conversion | State: claim is statutory lien enforcement under §§17b-93/94, not dependent on conversion elements | Defendant argued court treated claim as conversion, implying error | Court: Characterization irrelevant; state entitled to enforce statutory lien regardless |
| Whether the $500 loan cost is an "expense connected with the cause of action" under §17b-94(a) | State: loan/repayment cost is not a litigation expense (it was for personal vehicle replacement), so deduction improper | Defendant: cost should be deductible as it facilitated litigation and maximized recovery | Court: As a matter of law, the cost to obtain the loan is not an expense connected with the action; deduction improper |
| Whether there was a genuine factual dispute about the loan amount/use preventing summary judgment | State: loan was $500; $1,000 repayment must be included in net proceeds; no material factual dispute | Defendant: pleaded different characterizations and argued lack of evidence on how funds were used | Court: No material factual dispute; labeling ($1,000 loan vs $500 loan + $500 cost) irrelevant; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 306 Conn. 107 (standards for summary judgment and material fact definition)
- Jalbert v. Mulligan, 153 Conn. App. 124 (no review where party cites no law or analysis)
- SS-II, LLC v. Bridge Street Associates, 293 Conn. 287 (issues raised first in reply brief are unreviewable)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 170 Conn. App. 713 (summary judgment may be moved at any time; pleadings need not be closed)
- Girard v. Weiss, 43 Conn. App. 397 (same principle regarding timing of summary judgment)