Stephen J. Bruno v. Lisa Bruno (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE JEAN BRUNO'S AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE PJRs, CODED 522

Connecticut General Statutes § 36a–43 provides in part as follows:

(a) Except as provided in section 36a–44, a financial institution shall disclose financial records pursuant to a lawful subpoena, summons, warrant or court order served upon it if the party seeking the records causes such subpoena, summons, warrant or court order or a certified copy thereof to be served upon the customer whose records are being sought, at least ten days prior to the date on which the records are to be disclosed, provided a court of competent jurisdiction, for good cause may waive service of such subpoena, summons, warrant or court order, or certified copy thereof, upon such customer ․

(b) A customer of a financial institution shall have standing to challenge a subpoena of the customer's financial records, by filing an application or motion to quash in a court of competent jurisdiction.   Upon the filing of such application or motion by the customer, and service of such application or motion upon the financial institution and the person issuing the subpoena, production of the records shall be stayed, without liability to the financial institution, until the court holds a hearing on the motion or application and an order is entered sustaining, modifying or quashing the subpoena.  (Emphasis provided.)

Service upon Jean Bruno was made by a marshal on September 28, 2010 by leaving a true and attested copy at 111 Spring Valley Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut, the residence on file with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles.   The court does find that throughout these proceedings Jean Bruno did show her residence on file with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles as 111 Spring Valley Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut.   Jean Bruno on two occasions testified that while she moved to a residence in Massachusetts, she nevertheless gave her residence as a post office box.   It is clear that no one can live in a post office box.   In view of her attempt to show a post office box as her address, the court finds that she has not established a new residence.   In Spalding v. Spalding, 171 Conn 210, 368 A.2d 14 (1976), the court stated in part as follows:

[T]o constitute domicile, the residence at the place chosen for the domicile must be actual, and to the fact of residence there must be added an intention of remaining permanently;  and that place is the domicile of the person in which he has voluntarily fixed his habitation not for a mere temporary or special purpose but with the present intention of making it his home, unless and until something which is uncertain or unexpected shall happen to induce him to adopt some other permanent home.

The court finds that for a period of time Jean Bruno has established 111 Spring Valley Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut with the present intention of making it her home and has failed to meet her burden of proving that something which is uncertain or unexpected has happened to induce her to adopt some other permanent home.

Under the facts of this case, the court finds that 111 Spring Valley Road, Ridgefield continued to be her residence on September 28, 2010.

Another issue is whether or not this court has the authority under § 36a–43(a) for good cause shown to waive service of the subpoena upon Jean Bruno.   Clearly there is good cause shown to waive service of subpoena upon her and the court so orders.

This court is aware of the fact that these proceedings have resulted in an excessive and inordinate controversy and length of time up to the present time.   There is still to be heard the trial regarding whether the ex parte injunctions coded 480, 494.50 and 545 should be made permanent.

This court believes that this order, the order making Jean Bruno a party, and whatever orders are entered regarding the ex parte injunctions and whether or not following those orders any property execution order should enter will in all probability result in further appeals.   In the event new subpoenas were not ordered and on appeal it was determined that proper abode service was not made and that the court could not waive the service of subpoena after the subpoenas had been issued, then the case would simply come back for a new hearing when the defendant applied for new subpoenas since the Statute of Limitations has not expired.   This court believes that a hearing on the merits is in the best interest of everyone involved.   Under all the circumstances, the court is therefore ordering that the defendant apply for new bank subpoenas regarding all the financial institutions in question.   The court will then determine the date upon when the financial institutions have to respond to the new subpoenas.   The court will also determine whether to waive for good cause shown the service of the subpoenas upon Christina Bruno, Jean Bruno and the plaintiff.   The original bank subpoenas remain in full force and effect.

Having found that proper abode service was made and having waived requirement of service of the subpoena upon Jean Bruno, the court therefore denies the motion to vacate coded 522.

The court, in accordance with the rules of Appellate Procedure § 61–11(c) sua sponte, orders that the automatic stay is terminated.

Sidney Axelrod, Judge Trial Referee

Axelrod, Sidney, J.T.R.