Windsor Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Reliable Mechanical Contractors, LLC, 168 A.3d 586

Background

Reliable Mechanical executed a $25,000 promissory note in May 2005; its sole member Elijah El‑Hajj‑Bey purportedly signed a commercial guaranty.
Reliable defaulted; Windsor Federal sued Reliable and El‑Hajj‑Bey in 2009 for breach and collection; defendants asserted fraud and CUTPA counterclaims.
The plaintiff withdrew its claims against El‑Hajj‑Bey multiple times; he was cited back in and later removed again before final judgment.
The trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment as to liability only against Reliable (finding no credible opposition) and dismissed Reliable’s counterclaims as time‑barred and for lack of standing.
At damages hearing Reliable sought to present El‑Hajj‑Bey’s testimony; the court barred him from speaking because he was not a party. Final judgment awarded plaintiff principal, interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
On appeal the court held El‑Hajj‑Bey lacked standing to challenge the final judgment (he was not a defendant when it was rendered); it reversed summary judgment against Reliable and dismissed Reliable’s counterclaims appeal as moot because an independent ground for dismissal (standing) remained unchallenged.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Does El‑Hajj‑Bey have standing to appeal the final judgment against Reliable?	Windsor: El‑Hajj‑Bey was a party during litigation and may appeal.	El‑Hajj‑Bey: entitled to appeal the judgment affecting matters he contested.	No—El‑Hajj‑Bey was not a defendant when final judgment was rendered, so he is not aggrieved and lacks standing; his appeals dismissed.
2. Was summary judgment proper on liability (signature/guaranty dispute)?	Windsor: submitted note and guarantee bearing El‑Hajj‑Bey’s signature; no credible opposition.	Reliable: submitted El‑Hajj‑Bey affidavit and deposition excerpts denying he signed/claiming signature transposed, creating factual dispute.	Reversed—genuine factual dispute over signature existed; trial court improperly resolved credibility on summary judgment.
3. Were the counterclaims properly dismissed as time‑barred?	Windsor: counterclaims (fraud, CUTPA) were filed beyond the 3‑year limitations and defendants lacked standing.	Reliable: challenges that statute‑of‑limitations ruling was erroneous.	Dismissal as to Reliable upheld as moot on appeal—trial court relied also on unchallenged standing ground; no practical relief possible even if limitations ruling were wrong.
4. Could El‑Hajj‑Bey be heard at damages hearing on behalf of Reliable?	Windsor: damages hearing proceeded only against Reliable; nonparty has no right to be heard.	Defendants: El‑Hajj‑Bey should be permitted to present evidence for Reliable.	Not decided—the appellate court reversed summary judgment and did not reach this claim.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Salmon, 250 Conn. 147, 735 A.2d 333 (jurisdictional requirements for appeals: party, aggrieved, final judgment)
Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn. 304, 77 A.3d 726 (summary judgment burden and standards)
RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224, 32 A.3d 307 (court’s role at summary judgment is to identify, not decide, material factual disputes)
J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Properties, LLC, 309 Conn. 307, 71 A.3d 492 (overruled on other grounds cited for context regarding summary judgment jurisprudence)
DiMiceli v. Cheshire, 162 Conn. App. 216, 131 A.3d 771 (issue‑finding vs. issue‑determination at summary judgment)
Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99, 639 A.2d 507 (credibility determinations are for the factfinder, not for summary judgment)
Straw Pond Associates, LLC v. Fitzpatrick, Mariano & Santos, P.C., 167 Conn. App. 691, 145 A.3d 292 (summary judgment inappropriate when credibility disputes exist)
State v. Lester, 324 Conn. 519, 153 A.3d 647 (mootness doctrine where unchallenged independent grounds for judgment remain)