Kaye v. Housman

184 Conn.App. 808

195 A.3d 1168

Richelle KAYE

v.Douglas HOUSMAN

AC 40187

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 16, 2018

Officially released September 18, 2018

Sabato P. Fiano, with whom, on the brief, was Carolyn A. Trotta, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).

Anthony Musto, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Lavine, Keller and Bishop, Js.

LAVINE, J.

In this housing court matter, the defendant, Douglas Housman, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Richelle Kaye, following a hearing in damages. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly held a hearing in damages in view of his operative answer and four special defenses and (2) denied him the right to due process because the court did not adjudicate fully his timely filed answer and four special defenses.¹ We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the following procedural history. In April, 2016, the plaintiff served the defendant with a four count complaint alleging breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff alleged in part that she is the owner of property at 100 Stone Ridge Way in Fairfield and that she had leased the premises to the defendant pursuant to a written agreement from August 1, 2012 through July 31, 2016. She also alleged that the defendant was to pay her rent of $3400 per month, but he failed to pay rent for the months of August, 2015 through April, 2016. The plaintiff evicted the defendant from the premises. The plaintiff further alleged that she incurred expenses related to the eviction and will continue to incur expenses as a result of the defendant's default.

The complaint was returnable to court on May 24, 2016. Counsel for the defendant filed an appearance on the return day. On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for default for failure to plead. On July 5, 2016, the court, Bellis, J. , transferred the case from the Fairfield civil docket to the Bridgeport housing docket. On July 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second motion for default for failure to plead claiming that more than thirty days had passed since the complaint was filed and the defendant had not filed a responsive pleading. On August 18, 2016, the defendant filed an answer, twelve special defenses and right of recoupment. On August 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a request to revise asking the defendant to revise eight of his special defenses and right of recoupment. On September 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for default claiming that thirty days had passed since she filed a request to revise and that the defendant had not responded.² On October 3, 2014, the court, Rodriguez, J. , granted the motion for default for failure to plead. On October 25, 2016, the plaintiff filed a certificate of closed pleadings and claimed the matter for a hearing in damages.

On November 17, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the default.³ On that same day, the defendant also filed a request to amend his special defenses, and revised and amended special defenses and recoupment. On November 23, 2016, the plaintiff filed objections to the defendant's request to amend and his motion to open the default. She also filed a motion for a continuance to enable the court to rule on the defendant's pending motion to open the default. Judge Rodriguez granted the plaintiff's request for a continuance on November 28, 2016. On December 29, 2016, the court denied the defendant's motion to open the default and sustained the plaintiff's objection.

On January 4, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for continuance because her counsel was unavailable until February 10, 2017. The court granted the motion for continuance. On January 31, 2017, the defendant filed a motion to strike the matter from the hearing in damages list. In the motion to strike, the defendant represented that he had filed an answer, twelve special defenses, and right of recoupment on August 18, 2016, and that the plaintiff had filed requests to revise eight of his special defenses and right of recoupment. The defendant specifically pointed out that the plaintiff had not filed a request to revise the answer or his first, second, tenth or twelfth special defenses. He argued that the default affected only the eight special defenses and right of recoupment which he did not revise. In support of his motion to strike, the defendant cited Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. St. John , 80 Conn. App. 767, 837 A.2d 841 (2004), noting that the entry of a default was improper with respect to the complaint because "[t]he court had no authority to default the defendants for failure to plead on a complaint that they had properly answered." (Emphasis added.) Id., at 775, 837 A.2d 841.

The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to strike on February 2, 2017, and attempted to distinguish Connecticut Light & Power Co. procedurally because the request to revise in that case was directed to a counterclaim, not special defenses, which are part of an answer. The plaintiff, however, stated that if the court agreed with the defendant's argument pursuant to Connecticut Light & Power Co. , it should nonetheless find the defendant in default on those portions of his answer that he did not revise.

The parties appeared in court on February 15, 2017. The court heard argument on the defendant's motion to strike the case from the hearing in damages list. The court denied the motion to strike, held a hearing in damages, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $43,696.30.

The defendant appealed and filed a motion for articulation. See Practice Book § 66-5. The defendant asked the court to articulate the reason it denied his motion to strike the case from the hearing in damages list. The trial court denied the motion for articulation, and the defendant filed a motion for review in this court. See Practice Book § 66-7. This court granted the motion for review, but denied the relief requested.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to strike the case from the hearing in damages list because he timely filed an answer and his first, second, tenth, and twelfth special defenses.⁴ The defendant claims that the court, by denying his motion to strike, deprived him of the opportunity to contest liability that timely was put in issue by virtue of his answer and special defenses. The defendant also argues that Practice Book § 10-37 (a) contains no provision for granting a default or nonsuit for failure to comply with a request to revise.⁵

The plaintiff counters the defendant's claim on the basis of Practice Book § 10-6 (5), arguing that special defenses are part of an answer and therefore the defendant was in default on the entire complaint for failing to revise eight of his special defenses and recoupment. She also argues that the defendant's motion to strike merely was a second bite at the apple after the court denied the defendant's motion to set aside the default. In his reply brief, the defendant disagrees that he was seeking a second bite at the apple. He states that the relief he was seeking from his motion to set aside the default was resurrection of eight of his special defenses. The relief he sought in his motion to strike the case from the hearing in damages list was a trial on the merits of the case in view of his answer and four special defenses that the plaintiff did not request that he revise.

Our statutes and rules of practice provide penalties for failing to comply with the timely pleading requirements of Practice Book § 10-8. " General Statutes § 52-119 provides that [p]arties failing to plead according to the rules and orders of the court may be ... defaulted .... Section 10-18 of our rules of practice essentially mirrors that language. We read the plain and unambiguous language of both § 52-119 and Practice Book § 10-18 as empowering the court with the discretionary authority to impose a default as a penalty whenever a defendant has failed to comply with our rules regarding pleadings, including the timely advancement of such pleadings. Such authority is in accord with the court's broad, general authority to act to maintain the orderly procedure of the court docket, and to prevent any interference with the fair administration of justice." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) People's United Bank v. Bok , 143 Conn. App. 263, 268, 70 A.3d 1074 (2013).

"A default is an interlocutory ruling that establishes that a plaintiff is entitled to judgment, but requires further proceedings to determine the amount of money due to the plaintiff if the action is one for monetary damages." CAS Construction Co. v. Dainty Rubbish Service, Inc. , 60 Conn. App. 294, 299, 759 A.2d 555 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 928, 767 A.2d 101 (2001). "[A] default admits the material facts that constitute a cause of action ... and entry of a default, when appropriately made , conclusively determines the liability of a defendant." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. St. John , supra, 80 Conn. App. at 775, 837 A.2d 841.

The parties' positions with respect to what constitutes an answer require us to construe the relevant rules of practice. "We interpret provisions of the Practice Book according to the same well settled principles of construction that we apply to the General Statutes.... In determining the meaning of a statute, [it] must be considered as a whole, with a view toward reconciling its separate parts in order to render a reasonable overall interpretation." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilson v. Troxler , 91 Conn. App. 864, 871, 883 A.2d 18, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 928, 929, 889 A.2d 819, 820 (2005). "Statutory construction ... presents a question of law over which our review is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Byars v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. , 101 Conn....