Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

BOHONNON LAW FIRM, LLC v. JOHN H. BAXTER (AC 32115)
Gruendel, Bear and Mihalakos, Js. Argued June 2--officially released September 13, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Cosgrove, J. [prejudgment remedy]; Wilson, J. [motion to dismiss]; Lager, J. [motion to open default];

Hon. David W. Skolnick, judge trial referee [judgment].) Kenneth A. Votre, for the appellant (defendant). K. Wynne Bohonnon, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

BEAR, J. The defendant, John H. Baxter, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the Bohonnon Law Firm, LLC, on its complaint against the defendant for, inter alia, breach of contract for legal services. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly: (1) denied his motion to dismiss, (2) denied his motion to open the default, (3) curtailed his defense as to damages, (4) awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiff and (5) failed to protect his right to due process of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and very detailed procedural history1 are relevant to our consideration of the defendant's claims on appeal. After successfully securing an order for prejudgment remedy in the amount of $20,000 against the defendant, the plaintiff directed a marshal of the county of New London to summon the defendant. The plaintiff did not use the standard civil summons, form JD-CV-1. Rather, the plaintiff prepared its own writ of summons, which provided: ``By the authority of the state of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to Attach and Garnish to the value of TWENTY THOUSAND Dollars ($20,000) in the goods or estate of JOHN H. BAXTER (69 NECK RD., OLD LYME, CONNECTICUT) and summon her/him/it/them to Appear before the Superior Court for the New Haven Judicial District at New Haven on or before the 23 day of DECEMBER, 2008,2 said Appearance to be made by the/each defendant or her/his/its/their attorney, by filing a written statement of Appearance with the Clerk of said Court on or before the second day following said Return Date, then and there to answer unto BOHONNON LAW FIRM L.L.C, a duly authorized Connecticut limited liability company maintaining a principal place of business in New Haven, Connecticut, in a civil action wherein the plaintiff complains and says . . . .'' The plaintiff's three count complaint immediately follows the writ of summons, beginning on the same page. On the third page of the document, the plaintiff sets forth its claims for relief and states: ``Of this Writ, with your doings thereon, make due Service and Return. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 5 day of December, 2008.'' The signature of Joshua H. Brown, Commissioner of the Superior Court, is affixed, and the address and telephone number of his law firm are listed, as is his juris number.3 On December 8, 2008, state marshal Neil Feinberg attested that he had attached all of the right, title and interest of John H. Baxter in 69 Neck Road, Old Lyme. Included on that document is a description of 69 Neck Road and the following further attestation: ``and on the 8th day of said December A.D., 2008, I left in said Town Clerk's office in the Town of Old Lyme the original certificate of attachment with my endorsement thereon. And I also on the 8th day of said Dec. 2008 left a like true and attested copy of this application, order, affida-

vit and writ [of] summons, complaint and entire process, with my endorsement thereon . . . at the usual place of abode of John H. Baxter, 69 Neck Road, Old Lyme, Conn[ecticut], said Defendant . . . .'' The return of service was filed with the court on December 11, 2008. On December 30, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for default for failure to appear, and, on January 9, 2009, the defendant's counsel filed an appearance. On January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for default for failure to plead, which the clerk granted on February 5, 2009. The defendant filed a motion to open the default, #104, and a motion to discharge attachment, also #104, on February 19, 2009, and he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, #105, at the same time.4 The defendant asserted in the motions that the writ of summons and complaint were never returned to the court. He further asserted that the only documents properly returned to the court were those for the prejudgment remedy, which contained an October 24, 2008 return day. See footnote 2 of this opinion. On February 20, 2009, the court sent out a ``corrected order'' stating that the motion for default for failure to plead was denied because ``no return of writ was filed.''5 The defendant alleges, however, that on February 26, 2009, the court sent another notice to the parties, stating that the corrected order was in error and that the default for failure to plead properly had been entered on February 5, 2009.6 On March 10, 2009, the plaintiff filed a certificate of closed pleadings, claiming a hearing in damages. On March 26, 2009, the defendant again filed a motion to open the default, #109, and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, #110. On April 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to dismiss. On May 11, 2009, the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and ruled that the marshal properly had made service, that the return day was December 23, 2008,7 and that the complaint and other documents were returned to the court on December 11, 2008. Accordingly, the court sustained the plaintiff's objection and denied the motion to dismiss. On May 13, 2009, the plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant's motion to open the default. On May 15, 2009, the court ordered the case stricken from the inventory of cases for hearings in damages. On June 9, 2009, the court overruled without prejudice the plaintiff's May 13, 2009 objection to the motion to open the default, stating that it would reconsider the objection if the defendant failed to file his answer, with special defenses or counterclaims, if any, within seven calendar days. The record indicates that the clerk's office sent notice of this decision to the defendant's counsel on June 10, 2009. On July 14, 2009, the plaintiff filed another certificate of closed pleadings, and the court scheduled the matter for a September 9, 2009 hearing in damages.

On September 4, 2009, the defendant filed a motion entitled ``Motion to Correct Status of Pleadings, for Rectification of Court File and for Removal from Trial List.'' He also filed an affidavit in which counsel averred, inter alia, that he had never received notice of the court's June 9, 2009 ruling, in which the court gave the defendant seven days to file his answer. On September 9, 2009, the defendant filed his answer. During the hearing in damages held that day, the defendant argued that the court should set aside the default. In a February 5, 2010 memorandum of decision, the court stated that it would not reconsider the February 5, 2009 default, and it rendered judgment in the amount of $19,376.69, together with costs, in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal followed. I On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.8 The defendant argues: ``The process that was served upon [the] defendant was defective in that it failed to establish a return date. It failed to be returned within [six] days of a return date and it failed to be served at least [twelve] days before a return date. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.'' He further argues that ``prejudgment remedy documents are insufficient to commence an action. . . . [In this case] [t]he writ of summons and complaint are not sufficient . . . to commence an action.'' (Citations omitted.) Although the defendant argues that his claim implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction, we conclude that the defendant's claim implicates the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant.9 See Hillman v Greenwich, 217 Conn. 520, 526, 587 A.2d 99 (1991) (failure to comply with statutory prerequisite to commencement of civil action pursuant to General Statutes

Download Bohonnon Law Firm, LLC v. Baxter.pdf

Connecticut Law