Household Finance Co. v. Jill Naranjo et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 103)

The plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its two-count complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, stemming from the defendants' default on payments for their line of credit with the plaintiff.   The plaintiff argues that there is no material fact in dispute;  the court agrees and grants summary judgment.

The defendants, who are representing themselves, answered the complaint on a judicial branch form JD-HM-18.   In their answer, they did not “agree,” “disagree” or check the box for “do not know.”   Instead, they claimed a special defense as follows:  “Due to extreme financial difficulties, we were unable to pay the monthly payments.   We tried to make monthly arrangement of $100.00 but they would not accept it.”

In moving for summary judgment, the plaintiff argues that the defendants' special defense is an acknowledgment of their breach of their line of credit contract and the amounts claimed to be due.   The plaintiff has also attached a copy of the agreement between the parties, as well as a signed and sworn affidavit of a senior account specialist substantiating the amounts due.   The defendants filed no response to the motion.

“Practice Book [§ 17-49] provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ․ In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ․ The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law ․ and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.   Practice Book [§ 17-46] ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   American Progressive Life & Health Ins. Co. of New York v. Better Benefits, LLC, 292 Conn. 111, 119 (2009);  Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394, 399-400 (2005).

The documents submitted by the plaintiff do comport with the requirements of Practice Book § 17-45.   There is a signed, sworn statement from the plaintiff's employee attesting to the genuineness of the contract signed by the defendants, as well as the amounts due.   Moreover, it is a fair inference to read the defendants' answer as a tacit admission to the allegations made against them.   The defendants have failed to provide any evidentiary foundation from which this court can say that there is a genuine issue of material fact.

Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is granted.   Judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff as follows:  Principal:  $17,268.46;  Interest at 19.8%:  $2,754.06 (from 7/21/09 to 5/11/10);  Total due:  $20,022.52. The request for postjudgment interest is denied.   Weekly payments in the amount of $35.00 shall begin twenty-one (21) days after the entry of this order and shall be made to London & London, 48 Christian Lane, Newington, CT 06111.

MAUREEN M. KEEGAN, J.

Keegan, Maureen M., J.