Town of Glastonbury v. Sakon
161 A.3d 657
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Sakon owned two Glastonbury properties with unpaid real estate taxes for 2009–2013; town filed tax-lien foreclosure seeking foreclosure on liens for 2009–2013.
- Plaintiff (Town) filed motions to strike defendant’s special defenses and counterclaims after Sakon’s default was opened and he amended pleadings multiple times (original, amended, substitute pleas).
- Trial judge Robaina granted the first motion to strike the original special defenses and counterclaims as legally insufficient; Sakon sought reconsideration and then filed substitute pleadings under Practice Book §10-44.
- Judge Vacchelli later granted a third motion to strike the substitute special defenses and counterclaims, entered default as to special defenses and a judgment of nonsuit as to counterclaims, applying the law-of-the-case doctrine.
- Sakon appealed, challenging the strikes of special defenses and counterclaims; appellate court dismissed the portion challenging strikes of special defenses for lack of a final judgment and affirmed the striking of substitute counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review striking of special defenses | No — striking special defenses is not a final appealable judgment | Yes — judgment of nonsuit (or jurisdiction challenge) makes it appealable | Dismissed for lack of final judgment (no appealable final order at time of filing) |
| Whether Sakon waived challenge to court’s striking of original counterclaims by later filing substitute counterclaims | Filing substitute pleadings under Practice Book §10-44 waives right to appeal earlier strike | Filing substitute was procedural; does not waive right to challenge earlier error | Waiver found; amended/substitute pleadings precluded appeal of the original strike |
| Whether law-of-the-case barred relitigation of counterclaims after original strike | Counterclaims challenged zoning enforcement, not lien making/validity/enforcement; substitute repeats same legal issue | Substitute counterclaims raised different theories and equitable concerns; law-of-the-case inapplicable | Law-of-the-case applied: substitute claims reiterated issues previously ruled legally insufficient, so strike affirmed |
| Whether substitute counterclaims were legally sufficient as counterclaims in foreclosure action (i.e., arose from same transaction) | No — they challenged zoning/enforcement unrelated to making/validity/enforcement of tax liens, so not proper counterclaims under Practice Book §10-10 | Yes — equity and need to vindicate constitutional rights justify joinder in foreclosure action | Court did not abuse discretion: counterclaims did not arise from same transaction and were properly stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Canty v. Otto, 304 Conn. 546 (Conn. 2012) (final-judgment rule and subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
- Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Indus., Inc., 290 Conn. 767 (Conn. 2009) (policy behind final judgment rule; discourage piecemeal appeals)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, Trustee v. Rodrigues, 109 Conn. App. 125 (Conn. App. 2008) (striking special defenses is not an appealable final judgment)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rey, 150 Conn. App. 595 (Conn. App. 2014) (counterclaims in foreclosure must attack making, validity, or enforcement of lien)
- Ed Lally & Associates, Inc. v. DSBNC, LLC, 145 Conn. App. 718 (Conn. App. 2013) (filing amended pleading waives right to appeal earlier sustaining of motion to strike)
- Brown v. Otake, 164 Conn. App. 686 (Conn. App. 2016) (law-of-the-case doctrine principles)