Page 31 - CLT072720

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JULY 27, 2020 ¦ 31

permitting plaintiff to view his motor vehicle court from proceeding with the new foreclosure
tax assessment. The FOIC agreed with plain- trial. Regardless, the court issued a new strict
tiff, and ordered the board to strictly comply foreclosure verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and
with the FOIA requirements, but at the next the defendant appealed. The defendant argued
board meeting several members recused them- the court improperly vacated the judgement of
selves and the appealed matter was adjourned foreclosure and rendered a new judgment of
for lack of quorum. Plaintiff then brought the strict foreclosure in violation of the automatic
present action for failure to comply with the appellate stay in effect that arose out of the ini-
FOIC requirements, and defendants moved to tial appeal. The court rejected the argument,
dismiss for failure to exhaust FOIC remedies, and upheld the trial court’s finding on strict
and that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon foreclosure. The court found the trial court did
which relief could be sought because he did not not extend law days to effectuate a still-existing
allege any unlawful act or omission by the board foreclosure judgment, but rather vacated the
members. The trial court granted the motion to initial judgment and rendered an entirely new
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction judgement.
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
through the FOIC. The court disagreed, how-
ever upheld the defendant’s success on the mo- CIVIL PROCEDURE • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

tion to dismiss. The court found the plaintiff Court Reverses Trial Court’s Fact-
asked the court to construe a statute, and that Finding On Referee’s Decision Of
nothing in the FOIA’s statutory scheme man-
dated resolution through the FOIC prior to
bringing an action in the Superior Court. The Notice Delivery

court therefore declined to uphold dismissal CASE: Mendes v. Adm’r, Unemployment Comp. Act
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, however COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
the court did uphold dismissal for failure to DOC. NO.: AC 42442
state a claim because the plaintiff failed to al- COURT OPINION BY: Bright
lege any board member acted outside their du- DATE: July 14, 2020 • PAGES: 11
ties or unlawfully. The court upheld the motion
to dismiss. Defendant administrator of unemployment
compensation determined that the plaintiff was
entitled to unemployment benefits in 2017, and
notified his former employer. The employer ap-
CIVIL PROCEDURE pealed the decision to the referee, and in 2018 a

Court Finds Strict Foreclosure hearing was held which the plaintiff did not at-
tend. After the hearing the employer won a re-
Judgment was Vacated, and A New versal of defendant’s decision. Plaintiff filed a
Strict Foreclosure Judgment Rendered timely motion to open the referee’s decision on
the ground that he never received notice of the
hearing. The referee opened the decision, and
CASE: The Bank of New York Mellon v. Francois found that plaintiff had been properly mailed
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court notice of the 2018 hearing. The plaintiff admit-
DOC. NO.: AC 42573 ted she may have inadvertently discarded the
COURT OPINION BY: Prescott
DATE: July 14, 2020 • PAGES: 10 notice, and the referee therefore found denied
Plaintiff initiated the underlying action for the plaintiff ’s motion to open the 2018 hear-
foreclosure on a mortgage in 2015 on a residen- ing decision. The board affirmed the referee’s
tial property owned by defendant. The action decision, and the plaintiff appealed to the Su-
was scheduled for February 5, 2019, and after a perior Court, who reversed the decision of the
motion for continuance from the defendant was board and the referee finding there was no evi-
denied, the foreclosure trial proceeded, but had dence that the defendant properly mailed the
to be resumed on February 6, 2019. Counsel 2018 hearing notice. Defendant appealed, and
for plaintiff was scheduled to appear before the the court reversed the decision of the Superior
Appellate Court on February 6, 2019, however Court, reinstating the board and referee’s deci-
the trial went on without him, with plaintiff sion. The court found the Superior Court erro-
winning a verdict of strict foreclosure. A new neously made an assessment of the facts found
trial was scheduled to begin April 10, 2019, and by the referee and board, where the plaintiff
defendant argued appellate stay barred the trial did not file a motion to correct. As such, the

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune