Page 34 - CLT072720

34 ¦ JULY 27, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

CONTRACTS the property to plaintiff. Davis and two limit-
ed liability companies claiming interests in the
property filed a separate action alleging that
Court Found That Defendant Waived plaintiff had violated an appellate stay in the
All Defenses In Commercial foreclosure action. Plaintiff took Davis’ depo-
Foreclosure Case sition and discovered that nonparty Paquette,
who was not licensed to practice law, had filed
CASE: People’s United Bank, N.A. v. Armata appeals, motions, and other papers in the trial
COURT: Hartford J.D. Complex Litigation Docket and appellate courts surreptitiously in Davis’
DOC. NO.: CV-18-5050994 name. Plaintiff filed motions for contempt
COURT OPINION BY: Schuman against Davis, Paquette, and the LLCs. They
DATE: July 07, 2020 • PAGES: 6 filed cross-motions for contempt and sanctions
against plaintiff. The court granted plaintiff ’s
Plaintiffs filed a commercial foreclosure case motions, finding that Paquette engaged in liti-
against defendant and now moved for summary gation misconduct and the unauthorized prac-
judgment on liability. Defendant did not dis- tice of law. The court barred both Davis and
pute that plaintiffs established a prima facie case Paquette as self-represented parties from filing
that the defendant was liable under the guaranty. any action in the superior courts and from fil-
However, defendant asserted special defenses, ing any pleading or document without showing
alleging unclean hands and estoppel. Plaintiffs a valid photographic identification. The court
claimed that the defendant waived all special further restrained Paquette from engaging in
defenses. The court agreed with plaintiffs. The the unauthorized practice of law or in any fu-
court found that none of the waivers of defenses ture litigation misconduct, and ordered him
in the present case exempted future conduct, even to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the court and
though there was no actual issue of future defens- $66,081 in sanctions to plaintiff. The court de-
es in this case. When the parties signed the agree- nied defendants’ motions.
ment in September 2017, the defenses of unclean
hands and equitable estoppel no longer applied
to future conduct, but instead addressed conduct
that allegedly occurred contemporaneously with DISCOVERY • LAND USE AND PLANNING

the signing of the guaranties and waivers of de- Court Denied Intervening Defendant’s
fenses. Therefore, the court found that the defen- Request To Conduct Discovery In
dant waived all defenses.

CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS • Zoning Appeal
LITIGATION
CASE: Cirillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Fairfield
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
Nonparty Engaged in Unauthorized DOC. NO.: CV-19-6090954
COURT OPINION BY: Stevens
Practice of Law On Defendant’s Behalf DATE: July 02, 2020 • PAGES: 6

CASE: Deutsche Bank NationTrust Co. v. Davis Defendant granted an application for a building
COURT: Hartford J.D. permit authorizing the construction of a residen-
DOC. NO.: CV13-6046267 tial group home on the property owned by New-
COURT OPINION BY: Cobb port Academy. Plaintiff appealed this decision
DATE: July 01, 2020 • PAGES: 38 to the defendant, and the defendant denied the
On cross-motions for contempt and sanctions, appeal on its merits. Newport is the intervening
the court granted plaintiff ’s motions and denied defendant. Newport filed a motion to obtain dis-
defendants’ motions, finding that that nonpar- covery from plaintiffs regarding the plaintiffs’ ac-
ty Randall Paquette engaged in the unauthor- tual or constructive notice of the issuance of the
ized practice of law and that defendant Ophni building permit. The court denied Newport’s mo-
Davis supported Paquette’s illegal actions. In tion. The court held that Newport had not pro-
2013, plaintiff initiated foreclosure proceedings vided any extraordinary reason for the requested
against defendant Davis. A judgment of fore- discovery, and it had not sufficiently explained
closure by sale was entered in 2014, and title how the requested discovery was either neces-
transferred to plaintiff in July 2018. In March sary or material for the equitable disposition of
2018, just a few months prior to the transfer of plaintiffs’ appeal. The court noted that Newport

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune