175 Conn.App. 757
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 2008 Salce executed a $500,000 revolving promissory note with TD Bank; TD declared default in July 2014 and sued in Connecticut in September 2014.
- Process return: marshal left pleadings at Salce’s Fairfield property (abode service), served two copies on the Connecticut Secretary of the State, and mailed a certified copy to Salce’s Naples, Florida address pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(c).
- Salce moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting the Fairfield property was not his usual abode and that he did not receive the certified mail in Florida.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, granted TD Bank summary judgment as to liability, and later entered a damages judgment of $548,557.79; Salce appealed.
- Salce also asserted a special defense of promissory estoppel, claiming TD promised a note modification and failed to issue documentation, inducing him to stop payment; the court rejected this defense on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TD Bank) | Defendant's Argument (Salce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction/service of process under § 52-59b(c) | Service complied with § 52-59b(c): copies left with Sec. of State and certified mail to Salce’s last-known Florida address | Service ineffective because Salce never actually received the mailed documents and Fairfield property was not his usual abode | Service satisfied § 52-59b(c); actual receipt not required; dismissal denied |
| Validity of promissory estoppel special defense (summary judgment) | No evidence of a clear, definite promise to modify this specific note; discussions were mere negotiations; Salce stopped paying in 2011 (pre-dating alleged 2014 modification) | TD’s promise to modify induced reliance and justified cessation or other conduct; raises triable issue | Summary judgment proper: promissory estoppel elements (clear promise and detrimental reliance) not supported by evidentiary facts; no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Cogswell v. American Transit Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 505 (2007) (standard for resolving jurisdictional challenges and use of affidavits)
- Knipple v. Viking Communications, Ltd., 236 Conn. 602 (1996) (plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdiction over nonresident defendant)
- Doyle Group v. Alaskans for Cuddy, 146 Conn. App. 341 (2013) (statutory construction principles applied to long-arm service provisions)
- Heisinger v. Cleary, 323 Conn. 765 (2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Bellsite Development, LLC v. Monroe, 155 Conn. App. 131 (2015) (elements and limitations of promissory estoppel)