Three Deer Assoc. Ltd. P'ship v. Johnson

308 A.3d 1109

223 Conn.App. 544

THREE DEER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

v.DeNette JOHNSON et al.

(AC 46343)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 16, 2023

Officially Released January 30, 2024

DeNette Johnson, self-represented, the appellant (named defendant).

Moll, Clark and Seeley, Js.

PER CURIAM.

₅₄₅The self-represented named defendant, DeNette Johnson (Johnson), appeals following the trial court’s denial of her second motion to open a stipulated summary process judgment, rendered after she had entered into a stipulated agreement with the plaintiff, Three Deer Associates Limited Partnership, ₅₄₆doing business’ as Deerfield Apartments,¹ in connection with a summary process action commenced by the plaintiff against Johnson and her son, the defendant Eric Johnson II.² On appeal,. Johnson raises five claims, namely, that (1) the court improperly denied her second motion to open, (2) the court improperly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before acting on her second motion to open, (3) an evidentiary healing should have been conducted to determine if she was compliant with General Statutes § 47a-39, (4) the court violated her due process rights by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing, and (5) the underlying stipulated judgment should be vacated. We affirm the judgment with respect to Johnson’s first four claims relating to the denial of her motion to open and dismiss the appeal as it pertains to her fifth claim relating to the stipulated summary process judgment.

We briefly set forth the following relevant procedural history. In its summary process action, the plaintiff sought a judgment of possession of certain premises it had leased to Johnson pursuant to a one year written lease after Johnson had failed to pay the monthly rent due in September and October, 2022. The parties thereafter entered into a stipulated agreement, pursuant to which a judgment of possession would be rendered in ₅₄₇favor of the plaintiff with a stay of execution through March 1, 2023, and Johnson would pay a fee of $1450 for reasonable use and occupancy. The stipulation further provides that the "stay of execution is a FINAL stay of execution. [Johnson] agree[s] not to reopen, appeal or request any further stay of execution. Judgment shall enter for Lapse of Time only and not due to any fault of [Johnson]." The stipulation was approved and signed by the court on February 7, 2023 (stipulated summary process judgment).

On March 1, 2023, Johnson filed a motion to open the stipulated summary process judgment, in which she asserted that she was "requesting an extension" and that she would pay $1450 on March 10, 2023, in order to be able to stay in the premises until April 1, 2023. The plaintiff objected to that request, arguing that it violated the specific terms of the stipulated judgment and that Johnson failed to satisfy the requirements of § 47a-39, which permits a court to grant a stay of execution of a judgment of possession if "the applicant cannot secure suitable premises" and "has used due diligence and reasonable effort to secure other premises …." On March 6, 2023, the court denied the motion to open, explaining: "The parties entered a stipulation on February 7, 2023, with the assistance of a housing court specialist. All parties affirmed that they understood the terms of the agreement and voluntarily entered into the agreement, which called for a final stay through March 1, 2023. The agreement also affirmed that [Johnson] will not file any extensions of time, motions to open, or motions to delay or extend execution. … [T]he stipulation was approved by the court."

On March 8, 2023, Johnson filed a second motion to open, in which she asserted that she was "actively looking for new housing," that she is a sixty-nine year old senior with limited mobility, and that she needed more time. On March 16, 2023, the court denied the ₅₄₈second motion to open for the same reason it denied the first motion to open. Johnson thereafter filed this appeal on March 21, 2023, listing the March 16, 2023 denial of her second motion to open and the February 7, 2023 stipulated summary process judgment as the judgments being appealed.

[1–5] We first set forth our standard of review. "It is well established that [t]he denial of a motion to open is an appealable final judgment. … This court does not undertake a plenary review of the merits of a decision of the trial court to grant or to deny a motion to open a judgment. … In an appeal from a denial of a motion to open a judgment, our review is limited to the issue of whether the trial court has acted unreasonably and in clear abuse of its discretion. … In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, this court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of its action. … The manner in which [this] discretion is exercised will not be disturbed so long as the court could reasonably conclude as it did." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pizzoferrato v. Community Renewal Team, Inc., 211 Conn. App. 458, 464–65, 272 A.3d 1145 (2022).

[6] The first four claims on appeal concern the court’s denial of Johnson’s second motion to open. On the basis of our review of the record in this case and affording every reasonable presumption in favor of the court’s action, we cannot conclude that the court acted unreasonably or in clear abuse of its discretion when it denied the second motion to open the stipulated summary process judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment with respect to the court’s denial of Johnson’s second motion to open.

[7–10] Johnson’s fifth claim on...