132 Conn. App. 772
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Ungerland, Morgan Stanley customer, allegedly suffered $400,000 losses from 2001 recommendations.
- May 14, 2002 arbitration against Morgan Stanley resulted in $9,539 compensatory damages; plaintiff did not seek vacation/modification.
- December 2006 NASD findings show Morgan Stanley destroyed records; charges were filed; 2007 merger formed FINRA; Morgan Stanley settled via Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent.
- June 12, 2009 Ungerland filed state court suit alleging spoliation and UTPLA violations, claiming destroyed records prevented her from proving arbitration claims.
- July 23, 2009 defendants moved to dismiss as impermissible collateral attack on an arbitration award; April 5, 2010 dismissal; June 2010 appeal; court affirms, ruling on subject matter jurisdiction and lack of need for evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral attack on arbitration award proper here | Ungerland argues court lacked jurisdiction to entertain action due to collateral attack. | Morgan Stanley argues the complaint is an impermissible collateral attack on the award. | Dismissal upheld; court lacked jurisdiction for collateral attack. |
| Whether due process required an evidentiary hearing on opening the award | Due process required a hearing to determine meaning of the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent. | Letter unambiguous; no factual dispute; no hearing needed. | No evidentiary hearing needed; letter unambiguous; issue is legal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caltabiano v. L & L Real Estate Holdings II, LLC, 122 Conn.App. 751 (2010) (subject matter jurisdiction and de novo review of issues of law)
- Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317 (2010) (preferable to decide legal issues rather than delay for facts)
- Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358 (1994) (contract ambiguity; intent of parties as law)
- O'Connor v. Waterbury, 286 Conn. 732 (2008) (unambiguous contract; strict legal interpretation)