Page 33 - CLT120919

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 9, 2019 ¦ 33

trial court granted, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Plaintiff sought to purchase property from defen-
court reversed the judgment of the trial court with dant and executed a contract, however plaintiff was
respect to the CUPTA claim, but affirmed the mo- concerned about drainage on the property. Both
tion to strike the negligence claim. The court found, plaintiff and defendant engaged the Army Corps
taken as a whole, the defendant’s actions constitut- of Engineers and developed plans to adjust the
ed immoral and unscrupulous conduct that system- drainage, however once the plans were returned the
atically departed from standard business norms, sale fell through, and plaintiff brought the present
establishing a penumbra of unfairness that went action against defendant for specific performance,
against the policy interests of HAMP, RESPA, the breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promis-
national mortgage settlement, and the Connecticut sory estoppel. The trial court found in favor of the
foreclosure mediation statutes sufficient to survive a defendant on all counts, finding a violation of the
motion to strike. The court found no duty of care statute of frauds. Defendant appealed, arguing the
existed between lender and borrower to survive the trial court failed to consider extrinsic evidence of
motion to strike the negligence per se claim. ambiguities and the doctrine of part performance.
The court upheld the trial court’s decision. Find-
ing the sale did not meet the statute of frauds and
APPELLATE COURT doctrine of part performance was not applicable.

The court noted the contract did not identify ei-
ther plaintiff or defendant, nor their relationship to
CIVIL PROCEDURE • CRIMINAL APPEALS each other, and did not identify the subject of the
contract. Based on testimony from trial, the court
Court Finds Trial Courts Lack Subject found there was no meeting of the minds to remove
Matter Jurisdiction To Deny Motions To the requirements of the statute of frauds. The court
Correct An Illegal Sentence found in favor of the defendant in the unjust enrich-
ment and promissory estoppel claims, and upheld
the trial court’s decision.
CASE: State of Connecticut v. Ramos
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42330 CRIMINAL LAW • EVIDENCE
COURT OPINION BY:
DATE: November 26, 2019 • PAGES: 3
Court Finds Insufficient Evidence of
Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To
to sixty years incarceration. The self-represented
petitioner moved to correct an illegal sentence, ar-
guing he was a “sovereign citizen,” and that there- Overturn Habeas Court

fore the court’s jurisdiction did not apply to him. CASE: Watts v. Comm’r of Corr.
The trial court denied the motion to correct, and COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
the petitioner appealed. The court found that the DOC. NO.: AC 42049
trial court should properly have dismissed rather COURT OPINION BY: Sullivan
than denied the motion to correct an illegal sen- DATE: November 26, 2019 • PAGES: 12
tence, as a trial court lacks subject matter juris-
diction on motions to correct an illegal sentence. Petitioner was involved in two criminal cases: a drive-
The court remanded with direction to dismiss the by shooting in Hartford in 1995; and a shooting in-
motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. volving a coworker in 1998. Petitioner was charged
with murder, conspiracy, and assault. He pleaded
not guilty for both incidents. He was offered a plea
deal of 38 years incarceration to resolve both cases.
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES • REAL ESTATE Petitioner rejected the offer, was convicted for the

Court Finds No Meeting of The Minds 1995 shooting and sentenced to 95 years in prison.
Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal,
To Remove Requirements Of Statute Of and petitioner filed a habeas action alleging ineffec-
Frauds tive assistance of counsel and violations of his eighth
amendment right to remain free from cruel and un-
usual punishment. The habeas court denied the first
CASE: T & M Building Co., Inc. v. Hastings claim and dismissed the second without prejudice, as
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court there was a Supreme Court case pending on the mat-
DOC. NO.: AC 38614 ter of cruel and unusual punishment. Petitioner ap-
COURT OPINION BY: Alvord
DATE: November 26, 2019 • PAGES: 19 pealed, and the court affirmed in part and remanded

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune