University of New Haven v. Bennett Hines (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE:  MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT # 110

FACTS

On October 25, 2010, the plaintiff, University of New Haven, filed a two-count complaint against the defendant, Bennett Hines, alleging that the defendant owes $6,701.50 for unpaid tuition for educational services rendered by the plaintiff.   On November 2, 2010, the plaintiff served the defendant with a request for admissions.   The defendant failed to timely answer or object to the request for admissions and a notice of failure to respond was filed with the court on December 3, 2010.   Thereafter, on December 6, 2010, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which was denied without prejudice by the court, Woods, J., on January 20, 2011.

On December 9, 2010, the defendant filed an answer to the complaint, admitting all allegations in both counts of the complaint.¹  On February 2, 2011, the plaintiff filed the present motion for summary judgment (# 110) along with a supporting memorandum of law and evidentiary support.²  The defendant did not file an objection.

DISCUSSION

“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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548, 553–54, 985 A.2d 1042 (2010).  “[T]he ‘genuine issue’ aspect of summary judgment requires the parties to bring forward before trial evidentiary facts, or substantial evidence outside the pleadings, from which the material facts alleged in the pleadings can warrantably be inferred ․ A material fact has been defined adequately and simply as a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527, 556, 791 A.2d 489 (2002).

“In seeking summary judgment, it is the movant who has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact.   The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law.   The courts hold the movant to a strict standard.   To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact ․ As the burden of proof is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent ․

When documents submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment fail to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party has no obligation to submit documents establishing the existence of such an issue ․ Once the moving party has met its burden, however, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue ․ It is not enough, however, for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue.   Mere assertions of fact ․ are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court under Practice Book § [17–45].”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 10–11, 938 A.2d 576 (2008).

In the present case, the plaintiff moves for summary judgment arguing that there are no genuine issues of material fact because the defendant failed to respond to the request for admissions and the defendant admitted all material facts in his answer.  Practice Book § 13–23(a) states in relevant part:  “Each matter of which an admission is requested is admitted unless ․ the party to whom the request is directed files and serves up on the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter ․” See Orenstein v. Old Buckingham Corp., 205 Conn. 572, 576, 534 A.2d 1172 (1987) (“To these request for admissions there were no objections filed ․ and consequently, these requests were deemed to have been admitted”).   Accordingly, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all material allegations in the request for admissions.   In summary, the defendant admits the following material facts:  that he attended the University of New Haven, received the benefit of classes and education, incurred tuition charges, had an obligation to pay those charges, failed to pay the entire balance owing to the plaintiff for his attendance, and the balance due for unpaid services is $6,701.50.³  The failure to object or respond to admissions requests can be the basis for summary judgment.   See id.;  Allied Grocers Cooperative, Inc. v. Caplan, 30 Conn.App. 274, 279–80, 260 A.2d 165 (1993).

Practice Book § 10–46 states in relevant part:  “The defendant in the answer shall specially deny such allegations of the complaint as the defendant intends to controvert, admitting the truth of the other allegations, unless the defendant intends in good faith to controvert all the allegations, in which case he or she may deny them generally.”   In his answer, the defendant admits all allegations in both counts of the plaintiff's complaint and has, thus, admitted the underlying material facts and grounds for liability.

Accordingly, there are no genuine issues of material fact and therefore the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Richard E. Burke, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In the section for special defenses, the defendant wrote that the economy had an adverse effect on his personal finances;  that he had offered to make monthly payments of $300 to the plaintiff but was told that he could only make a lump sum payment of $3000, that he did not have the funds for a lump sum payment, that he is still willing to make monthly payment arrangements, and that he is willing to use a portion of his 2010 tax return to satisfy a portion of this debt..  FN1. In the section for special defenses, the defendant wrote that the economy had an adverse effect on his personal finances;  that he had offered to make monthly payments of $300 to the plaintiff but was told that he could only make a lump sum payment of $3000, that he did not have the funds for a lump sum payment, that he is still willing to make monthly payment arrangements, and that he is willing to use a portion of his 2010 tax return to satisfy a portion of this debt.

FN2. The plaintiff submits copies of the request for admissions, a business record reflecting the total balance due, and the defendant's answer..  FN2. The plaintiff submits copies of the request for admissions, a business record reflecting the total balance due, and the defendant's answer.

FN3. The plaintiff's request for admissions included a total of seventeen (17) requests to admit..  FN3. The plaintiff's request for admissions included a total of seventeen (17) requests to admit.

Burke, Richard E., J.