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. ******************************************************

CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE II, L.P. v. MARIE C. MILAZZO ET AL. (SC 18001)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued February 5--officially released June 24, 2008

David A. Lavenburg, for the appellant (plaintiff). Richard F. Connors, for the appellee (defendant Wageeh S. Aqleh).

Opinion

ZARELLA, J. In this action on a promissory note, the plaintiff, Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P., appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant Wageeh S. Aqleh1 on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to commence the action within the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment because (1) the statute of limitations was tolled by the defendant's absence from the country, (2) the defendant improperly was allowed to relitigate jurisdictional issues decided by the court when it denied his prior motion to dismiss, and (3) the court previously had obtained personal and in rem jurisdiction over the defendant when the order of notice was issued on October 18, 2004. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On July 17, 1991, Michael Milazzo, president of Melina Enterprises, Inc. (Melina), executed a commercial note in favor of Connecticut Savings Bank (bank) in the principal amount of $175,000, payable in full, together with interest, on July 1, 1996.2 The note was guaranteed by seven individuals, including Michael Milazzo and the defendant. In an agreement of guaranty and suretyship dated July 17, 1991, the defendant ``absolutely and unconditionally'' guaranteed to the bank and its successors, endorsees and assigns, full and prompt payment of all liabilities and indebtedness arising under the note. The defendant also waived all rights to notice and a hearing prior to any attempt by the bank to obtain a prejudgment remedy,3 and all rights to a jury trial and personal service of process.4 The agreement further stipulated that service was to be made by registered mail at 50 Highcrest Drive in Rocky Hill, the defendant's alleged address, and would be deemed completed upon actual receipt. Thereafter, Melina defaulted on the note for failure to make the required payments when due. The defendant also defaulted under the guaranty and suretyship agreement. On or about July 25, 1997, the bank assigned the note to the plaintiff. In October, 1998, the plaintiff brought the present action against Melina, the defendant and three other individual guarantors, Marie C. Milazzo, Barbara N. Milazzo and Susan Aqleh.5 Because the plaintiff knew that the defendant no longer resided at the Rocky Hill address, the sheriff made abode service on October 6, 1998, by leaving the summons and complaint at 53 Cambridge Drive, Unit A, in Newington, where the defendant was believed to reside.6 On December 16, 1998, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for default against the defendants for failure to appear. On February 11, 1999, attorney

Thomas G. Benneche filed an appearance for Marie C. Milazzo, Barbara N. Milazzo and Susan Aqleh. Subsequent court records incorrectly indicated that Benneche also appeared for the defendant.7 Benneche certified that a copy of the appearance form had been mailed or delivered to all counsel of record. On December 18, 2002, the plaintiff attached property that the defendant owned at 582 Skiff Street in North Haven pursuant to General Statutes

Download Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Milazzo.pdf

Connecticut Law