Hine Builders v. Glasscock

312 A.3d 81

224 Conn.App. 185

HINE BUILDERS, LLC

v.Alex GLASSCOCK et al.

(AC 46298)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 7, 2023

Officially Released March 12, 2024

Arash Beral, pro hac vice, with whom was Alina Levi, for the appellants (defendants).

Scott T. Garosshen, with whom were William S. Wilson II, and, on the brief, Linda L. Morkan, Hartford, and Ileana Polanco-Cavazos, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Moll, Cradle and Bear, Js.

MOLL, J.

₁₈₆The defendants, Alex Glasscock and Susan Glasscock, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the application to compel arbitration filed by the plaintiff, Hine Builders, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) committed plain error in granting the application to compel arbitration (a) following a remote status conference that was not transcribed or recorded by a court reporter or court recording monitor and (b) without providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the issues in connection with the application, (2) failed to review an agreement executed by the parties, pursuant to which the plaintiff sought to compel arbitration, before granting the application, and (3) improperly granted the application when the prerequisites to arbitration, as set forth in the parties’ agreement, had not been satisfied. We do not reach the merits of the defendants’ claims because, during the pendency of this appeal and following the termination of the appellate stay, arbitration proceedings commenced as ordered by the trial court, and, accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

₁₈₇The following procedural history is relevant to our resolution of this appeal. In January, 2023, the plaintiff filed with the Superior Court an application for an order to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties’ agreement.¹ See General Statutes § 52-410.² On February 7, 2023, the defendants filed an answer. On February 14, 2023, following a remote status conference, the trial court, Hon. Taggart D. Adams, judge trial referee, issued an order directing "the parties to commence arbitration within [thirty] days."³ On March 2, 2023, the defendants filed this appeal.

[1] On March 14, 2023, pursuant to Practice Book § 61-11 (d) and (e), the plaintiff filed a motion to terminate the automatic appellate stay of § 61-11 (a)⁴ (motion to ₁₈₈terminate stay). On March 21, 2023, the defendants filed an opposition to the motion to terminate stay. On August 16, 2023, following a hearing held on May 8, 2023,⁵ the court granted the motion to terminate stay. The defendants did not file a motion for review of the August 16, 2023 decision. See Practice Book § 61-14.⁶

On November 1, 2023, prior to oral argument, we ordered, sua sponte, the parties’ respective counsel to "be prepared to address at oral argument whether the trial court’s August 16, 2023 granting of the plaintiff-appellee’s motion to terminate appellate stay, and/or any subsequent activity occurring on the basis thereof, render moot the appeal." During oral argument before this court on November 7, 2023, the parties’ respective counsel (1) represented that arbitration proceedings were ongoing and (2) shared the position that this appeal was not moot. Thereafter, on November 15, 2023, we ordered, sua sponte, the parties to file supplemental ₁₈₉briefs further addressing whether this appeal has been rendered moot following the grant of the motion to terminate stay.⁷ On November 30, 2023, the parties filed supplemental briefs in accordance with our order.

In their respective supplemental briefs, the parties maintain that this appeal has not been rendered moot following the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, which, per their representations, remain ongoing.⁸ The defendants argue that this court "still has the ability to grant ‘practical relief,’ which would effectively suspend the arbitration and require the parties to exhaust their [alternative dispute resolution] remedies under the governing contract documents."⁹ ₁₉₀The plaintiff argues that the commencement of the arbitration proceedings did not render this appeal moot, reasoning that "implementing the [trial court’s] February 14, 2023 order [compelling arbitration] while the appeal is pending preserves [the] [d]efendants’ ability to obtain effective relief on appeal because they can raise nonarbitrability in a motion to vacate whatever arbitration award is made." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The plaintiff further argues that this appeal would become moot if either (1) the arbitrator enters an award or (2) the defendants "subject themselves to a default award in the arbitration," as, in either scenario, the arbitration proceedings will have been completed. Notwithstanding the parties’ current, mutual stance that this appeal is not moot, we conclude that this appeal is moot and that, therefore, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the defendants’ claims.

[2–7] "Mootness implicates [this] court’s subject matter jurisdiction and is thus a threshold matter for us to resolve. … It is a [well settled] general rule that the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow. .. An actual controversy must exist not only at the time the appeal is taken, but also throughout the pendency of the appeal. … When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot. … [A] subject matter jurisdictional defect may not be waived … [or jurisdiction] conferred by the parties, explicitly or implicitly. … [T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law … and, once raised, either by a party or by the court itself, the question must be answered before the court may ₁₉₁decide the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brookstone Homes, LLC v. Merco Holdings, LLC, 208 Conn. App. 789, 798-99, 266 A.3d 921 (2021).

[8] We conclude that this appeal has been rendered moot by the commencement of the arbitration proceedings following the termination of the appellate stay. In granting the plaintiff’s application to compel arbitration, the court ordered the parties to commence arbitration proceedings. After the court’s grant of the motion to terminate stay, of which decision the defendants did not seek appellate review by filing a motion for review, the parties moved forward with arbitration proceed- ings. Simply put, there is no practical relief that we may afford the defendants because the court’s judgment from which they have appealed—ordering the parties to commence arbitration proceedings—has been executed and cannot now be undone.¹⁰

The appeal is dismissed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1The parties do not dispute that (1) on January 18, 2022, they executed "a written agreement for the plaintiff to provide certain demolition, renovation and site improvements at a residence owned by the defendants … in Norwalk," and (2) the agreement contains various provisions concerning arbitration.

2General Statutes § 52-410 provides in relevant part: "(a) A party to a written agreement for arbitration claiming the neglect or refusal of another to proceed with an arbitration thereunder may make application to the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when the court is not in session, to any judge thereof, for an order directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in compliance with their agreement. The application shall be by writ of summons and complaint, served in the manner provided by law. ..

"(c) The parties shall be considered as at issue on the allegations of the complaint unless the defendant files answer thereto within five days from the return day, and the court or judge shall hear the matter either at a short calendar session, or as a privileged case, or otherwise, in order to dispose of the case with the least possible delay, and shall either grant the order or deny the application, according to the rights of the parties."

3On March 21, 2023, in response to a Practice Book § 64-1 notice filed by the defendants, the court issued...