LLC v. JC (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO TERMINATE STAY

The plaintiff moved to terminate the stay by pleading dated June 15, 2011, sent to this court on June 28, 2011.   The objection was filed on July 1, 2011 and the reply by the plaintiff was filed on July 26, 2011.   A hearing was held before this court on July 26, 2011.

Practice Book § 61–11 provides for an automatic stay when an appeal is taken.   To terminate the stay there is Section 61–11(c).  Practice Book § 61–11(c) requires the court to find that the appeal was taken solely for delay, or that the due administration of justice requires termination of the stay.

The court finds that the appeal was not taken solely for delay.   Incidental to any appeal is delay.   There are substantial legal and factual issues raised in the appeal that were complicated at trial, and rulings thereon were in difficult areas of the law.   The court finds that the appeal was not taken for the purposes of delay.

The second prong of the termination of stay is that the due administration of justice requires termination of the stay.   The Supreme Court in the Griffin Hospital case instructed that the trial court should use and apply familiar equitable principals in the context of adjusting the rights of the parties during the pendency of litigation, until a final determination on the merits.   That court indicates that those criteria are pertinent to the “due administration of justice.”   The court further went on to say it is not possible to reduce all of the considerations involved in the stay orders to a rigid formula.

The court in this case finds that based on the liens placed by the plaintiff on the defendant's property, they secure its interest.   In the proposal made by the plaintiff, there is discussion about not turning over monies, but holding monies in escrow or in a court's account.   This does not solve the problem of immediate monies infused into the plaintiff's hands.   Also there is no authority cited for such an order on a stay termination.

The plaintiff at the hearing claimed a total judgment at this time of $393,000.00.   The plaintiff did not have the net value of the liened property to assist the court in considering the equities.   There is no history of the defendant's inability to pay a judgment.   There have been no steps taken to prevent the plaintiff's ability to collect if it prevails.   The plaintiff has produced no evidence that the defendant willfully delayed the appeal.   In fact, the parties believe that the hearing before the Appellate Court will be heard in September or thereabouts.

In addition, because of the complicated issues involved here, the court has taken into consideration the fact that the likelihood of success by either party on the appeal is uncertain.   There are substantial issues and rulings made by the court that are subject to the Appellate Court review.

Accordingly, the motion to terminate the stay is denied.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

Karazin, Edward R., J.T.R.