Page 33 - CLT122820

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 28, 2020 ¦ 33

Complainant made a request for all audio, video, the bankruptcy court adopted what it called the
and dash and body camera footage related to two “minority ‘plain meaning’ approach,” under which
officers and two state employees who had inter- the term “residence” is interpreted, using tradition-
actions with the Dionne family and household. al canons of construction, to include primary and
Complainant also requested all personnel files non-primary residences. The district court affirmed,
related to the two state employees, including dis- adopting the same approach. The court affirmed,
ciplinary documentation, counseling, and train- holding that the term “residence” in §522(d)(1) cov-
ing. Respondent withheld the personnel records, ers both primary and non-primary residences. The
claiming they were exempt from disclosure, and court found the statutory language to be unambigu-
complainant alleged an FOI violation. The Com- ous: the ordinary meaning of the word “residence”
missioner found the files contained no internal does not exclude non-primary residences. Further,
investigations, and therefore they were exempt Congress’s choice of terminology appeared to be
from disclosure. The Commissioner noted that deliberate. The fact that the statute sometimes uses
House Bill 6004, which passed after July 31, 2020 the term “principal residence” but did not do so in
would not have allowed the disciplinary records §522(d)(1) supported that conclusion. The court
to be exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner also found that the statutory purpose revealed by
also held the training records were not exempt. the legislative history supported the position that

the property should be exempt. Marisca’s son was
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS not merely a visitor. Pursuant to the divorce decree
parenting plan, he spent several days a week at the
property with his father. Indisputably, the property
was one of the son’s residences, even if it was not his
BANKRUPTCY • primary residence.
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS

Bankruptcy Code Homestead U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Exemption Includes Both Primary and
Non-Primary Residences CIVIL PROCEDURE

CASE: In re: Maresca Court Denies Motion for Interlocutory
COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit
DOC. NO.: 19-3331
COURT OPINION BY: Katzmann Appeal Certification

DATE: December 14, 2020 • PAGES: 12 CASE: Columbia Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft, Inc.
The court affirmed a district court judgment, hold- COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
ing that a bankruptcy debtor could exempt, as a DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00701
homestead exemption, her interest in her depen- COURT OPINION BY: Meyer
dent’s non-primary residence. Debtor Melissa Mar- DATE: December 14, 2020 • PAGES: 5
esca and her then-husband, Charles Crilly, jointly
owned a residential property. After they were di- This case involved the non-renewal of a commer-
vorced, they shared joint custody of their son. Mar- cial dealership agreement for the sale of aircraft
between defendant and plaintiff, including a claim
esca moved to an apartment. Crilly continued to use for violation of the Connecticut Franchise Act.
the property as his primary residence. Their son re- The court had previously granted defendant’s
sided primarily with Maresca but also spent several motion to transfer the action to the Southern
days each week with Crilly in the property. Terry District of Florida based on a mandatory forum-
Donovan, Maresca’s divorce attorney, obtained selection clause in their agreement. Plaintiff sub-
a judgment against Maresca for unpaid legal fees. sequently argued that transfer of their claim for
Maresca filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. She sought violation of the CFA would violate public policy,
to avoid liens that Donovan and another creditor which the court also rejected. The plaintiff then
had placed on the property, claiming a “home- asked the court for certification of interlocutory
stead” exemption in her interest under 11 U.S.C. appeal on the CFA ruling, and the court rejected
§522(d)(1). The bankruptcy court granted Mares- the request. The court found plaintiff failed to as-
ca’s motion to avoid the lien, concluding that her sert a civil rights claim, and that plaintiff did not
interest was exempt because her son used the prop- show that it lacked resources to fight the claim in
erty as a “residence.” In reaching this conclusion, Florida, and lifted the stay of transfer.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune