Page 30 - CLT010421

30 ¦ JANUARY 4, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT APPELLATE COURT

CRIMINAL APPEALS DEALS AND TRANSACTIONS •
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Appellate Court Required to
Address Sua Sponte Issues under No Statute of Limitations Applied to
Blumberg Bar Declaratory Judgment Action

CASE: State of Connecticut v. Stephenson CASE: Village Mortgage Co. v. Garbus
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court DOC. NO.: AC 42667
DOC. NO.: SC 20272
COURT OPINION BY: Kahn COURT OPINION BY: Lavine
DATE: December 22, 2020 • PAGES: 14
DATE: December 18, 2020 • PAGES: 9
Defendant, who was facing criminal charges, In 1998, when the plaintiff corporation was
was arrested by police after breaking and en- founded, defendants were original stockhold-
tering into the state’s attorney’s office and ers having received 300 shares in exchange for
attempting to destroy files belonging to the $30,000; also in 1998 defendants returned their
prosecutor. The trial court jury convicted 300 shares and were reimbursed. Plaintiff al-
defendant of burglary and attempt to com- leged this reimbursement amounted to a rescis-
mit tampering with physical evidence. The sion of the initial purchase. In 2011, the same
defendant appealed, arguing the trial court 300 shares were re-issued to the defendants for
jury had insufficient evidence that defendant the same amount by plaintiff ’s cofounder, al-
believed the file tampered with actually con- though plaintiff alleged such issue was done
tained evidence. The appellate court reversed, without proper corporate authority and at a
but found sua sponte that the single fact that price substantially less than fair market. Plain-
there were disorganized files on the floor was tiff brought an action for a declaratory judg-
insufficient for the jury to conclude defen- ment seeking determination from the court that
dant ever touched them. On appeal, the court defendants were not lawful stockholders, and
found, under Blumberg, that the appellate defendants argued the claim was time barred
court acted improperly on ruling sua sponte by the statute of limitations, laches, and that
on the issue without allowing the parties an the plaintiff ’s cofounder acted with authority.
opportunity to brief or argue. The court re- The trial court found defendants either relin-
manded, finding that if the appellate court quished or never possessed the stock certificate,
chose to address the issue, it was required to that the cofounder engaged in unauthorized
exercise its discretion under Blumberg. conduct in an attempt to procure money for

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune