Joyce A. Buckman v. Andrea J. DeMello (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (# 117)

FACTS

The plaintiff, Joyce A. Buckman, acting in accord with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), General Statutes § 52–604 et seq., filed a “Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgments” on August 17, 2007.   On October 6, 2011, the defendant, Andrea J. DeMello, filed a two-count counterclaim (No. 116).   Count one of the defendant's counterclaim alleges that the plaintiff has failed to pay her share of expenses related to the upkeep of property that she co-owns with the defendant.   Count two alleges that the plaintiff has defaulted on a loan she received from the defendant.   On October 17, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant's counterclaims (No. 117).   On November 10, 2011, the defendant filed an objection to the motion to strike (No. 124).   The court heard oral argument on the defendant's motion to strike on November 7, 2011.

DISCUSSION

“[A] party may challenge the legal sufficiency of an adverse party's claim by filing a motion to strike.”  Vertex, Inc. v. Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557, 564, 898 A.2d 178 (2006).  “[A] motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 295 Conn. 240, 252, 990 A.2d 206 (2010).   In ruling on a motion to strike, “[t]he role of the trial court [is] to examine the [complaint], construed in favor of the [plaintiff], to determine whether the [plaintiff has] stated a legally sufficient cause of action.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 242 Conn. 375, 378, 698 A.2d 859 (1997).

The plaintiff argues that the counterclaims are precluded by the equitable principles of res judicata.   The defendant disagrees, and claims that “Connecticut Courts have routinely recognized that defendants have rights to make counterclaims in actions to enforce foreign judgments.” ¹

The present action is simply a registration of a foreign judgment undertaken pursuant to the UEFJA.   This type of proceeding does not involve a complaint.   See § 52–605.²  The purpose of such an action is not to litigate new claims, but rather to have a foreign judgment recognized in this state for purposes of enforcement.   The lack of a complaint renders Practice Book § 10–10, the provision governing counterclaims in civil matters, inapplicable to this type of action.³  Coupled with the defendant's failure to cite any controlling or persuasive case law in support of her belief that counterclaims are appropriate in the present action, the inapplicability of Practice Book § 10–10 leaves the defendant without any authority under which her counterclaims may proceed.   See also Town of Wallingford v. Glen Valley Associates, Inc., 190 Conn. 158, 160, 459 A.2d 525 (1983).

Moreover, while there appears to be no appellate authority on the question of whether a counterclaim can be asserted in a proceeding instituted under the UEFJA in Connecticut,⁴ courts in other jurisdictions have determined that the UEFJA “precludes the filing of a counterclaim” in actions instituted pursuant to its provisions.   See Sunrise Turquoise, Inc. v. Chemical Design Company, Inc., 899 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.App.1995) (holding counterclaims to be inappropriate when enforcing a foreign judgment under the act, and noting that other courts reached the same conclusion);  Hammette v. Eickemeyer, 203 Ga.App. 243, 416 S.E.2d 824 (1992) (same);  Landon v. Artz, 6 Kan.App.2d. 617, 631 P.2d 1237 (1981) (same).

Based on the forgoing, the counterclaims are not permitted in an action to domesticate a foreign judgment that is brought in accord with the UEFJA, and the plaintiff's motion to strike is granted.

WOODS, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The defendant cites to General Electric Capital Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Rizvi, 113 Conn.App. 673, 971 A.2d 41 (2009) and Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Co., 268 Conn. 264, 842 A.2d 1113 (2004) in support of this proposition.   Simply put, neither case stands for such a proposition..  FN1. The defendant cites to General Electric Capital Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Rizvi, 113 Conn.App. 673, 971 A.2d 41 (2009) and Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Co., 268 Conn. 264, 842 A.2d 1113 (2004) in support of this proposition.   Simply put, neither case stands for such a proposition.

FN2. General Statutes § 52–605 provides:  “(a) A judgment creditor shall file, with a certified copy of a foreign judgment, in the court in which enforcement of such judgment is sought, a certification that the judgment was not obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment, that it is unsatisfied in whole or in part, the amount remaining unpaid and that the enforcement of such judgment has not been stayed and setting forth the name and last-known address of the judgment debtor.“(b) Such foreign judgment shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of a court of this state.   A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating or staying as a judgment of a court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.“(c) Within thirty days after the filing of the judgment and the certificate, the judgment creditor shall mail notice of filing of the foreign judgment by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the judgment debtor at such judgment debtor's last-known address.   The proceeds of an execution shall not be distributed to the judgment creditor earlier than thirty days after filing of proof of service with the clerk of the court in which enforcement of such judgment is sought.”.  FN2. General Statutes § 52–605 provides:  “(a) A judgment creditor shall file, with a certified copy of a foreign judgment, in the court in which enforcement of such judgment is sought, a certification that the judgment was not obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment, that it is unsatisfied in whole or in part, the amount remaining unpaid and that the enforcement of such judgment has not been stayed and setting forth the name and last-known address of the judgment debtor.“(b) Such foreign judgment shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of a court of this state.   A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating or staying as a judgment of a court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.“(c) Within thirty days after the filing of the judgment and the certificate, the judgment creditor shall mail notice of filing of the foreign judgment by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the judgment debtor at such judgment debtor's last-known address.   The proceeds of an execution shall not be distributed to the judgment creditor earlier than thirty days after filing of proof of service with the clerk of the court in which enforcement of such judgment is sought.”

FN3. Practice Book § 10–10 provides, in relevant part:  “In any action for legal or equitable relief, any defendant may file counterclaims against any plaintiff and cross claims against any codefendant provided that each such counterclaim and cross claim arises out of the transaction or one of the transactions which is the subject of the plaintiff's complaint.”   (Emphasis added.).  FN3. Practice Book § 10–10 provides, in relevant part:  “In any action for legal or equitable relief, any defendant may file counterclaims against any plaintiff and cross claims against any codefendant provided that each such counterclaim and cross claim arises out of the transaction or one of the transactions which is the subject of the plaintiff's complaint.”   (Emphasis added.)

FN4. At least one Connecticut superior court has encountered, and may have permitted, a counterclaim in an action to domesticate a foreign judgment pursuant to the UEFJA.   See Harmony Healthcare Intern., Inc. v. PARCC Healthcare, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 07 5009225 (January 20, 2010, Keegan, J.).   The issue of whether a counterclaim is fundamentally permissible is not discussed in that opinion;  nor is there any indication whether the action was brought under the UEFJA, or brought pursuant to the common law, as permitted by General Statute § 52–607.   See id.   Note that whether counterclaims are permissible in common-law actions to enforce foreign judgments is a distinct issue from the one in the present case..  FN4. At least one Connecticut superior court has encountered, and may have permitted, a counterclaim in an action to domesticate a foreign judgment pursuant to the UEFJA.   See Harmony Healthcare Intern., Inc. v. PARCC Healthcare, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 07 5009225 (January 20, 2010, Keegan, J.).   The issue of whether a counterclaim is fundamentally permissible is not discussed in that opinion;  nor is there any indication whether the action was brought under the UEFJA, or brought pursuant to the common law, as permitted by General Statute § 52–607.   See id.   Note that whether counterclaims are permissible in common-law actions to enforce foreign judgments is a distinct issue from the one in the present case.

Woods, Glenn A., J.