LLC v. RJM (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE APRIL 1, 2013 HEARING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

This matter was tried before this court on May 9, 2012, with posttrial briefs submitted on July 16, 2012.   The court issued its memorandum of decision on September 25, 2012, finding in favor of the plaintiff, Key Air, LLC (“Key Air”), and against the defendant, RJM Aviation Associates, Inc. (“RJM”) on the complaint, counterclaims and special defenses asserted by RJM. The court awarded Key Air damages in the amount of $82,509.59, attorneys fees, costs, and both prejudgment and postjudgment interest.   Key Air filed a motion for attorneys fees, and was awarded the amount of $23,325.¹  Costs were subsequently taxed in the amount of $486.80.

On December 3, 2012, RJM filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal, and withdrew said notice the next day.   On December 4, 2012, RJM filed its motion to set interest rate, in which it asked the court to set the interest rate for prejudgment as well as postjudgment interest.   RJM argued that no final judgment had entered due to the court's failure to set a specific interest rate.   Key Air objected to the motion to set interest rate on December 12, 2012, and argued that the court had set the interest rate in its September 25, 2012 memorandum of decision, and final judgment had entered on that date.

RJM states that “out of an abundance of caution,” it filed an appeal on December 3, 2012, to preserve its rights, although it was RJM's position that final judgment had not entered.   In response, Key Air filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was late, or alternatively, premature.²  On December 26, 2012, RJM filed its motion for permission to file late appeal.

After the February 6, 2013 order of the Appellate Court (see footnote 2);  RJM then filed a motion for reconsideration/clarification with the Appellate Court, arguing that the order of February 6, 2013, was ambiguous as to the basis for dismissal as to the counterclaims.   The Appellate Court then entered an order dated March 7, 2013, which stated:

The motion of the defendant/appellant, filed February 19, 2013, for reconsideration/clarification having been presented to the court, it is hereby ordered denied.   The Appellate Court sua sponte issues a corrected order on the defendant's motion for permission to file a late appeal dated December 26, 2012.   The defendant is granted permission to file a late appeal from the September 25, 2012 ruling on the counterclaim within twenty days of the trial court's rendition of a final judgment on the complaint.   No action is necessary as to the complaint.

This court scheduled a hearing on the motion to set interest and the objection thereto for March 25, 2013, and issued a decision on March 28, 2013, setting an interest rate pursuant to General Statutes § 37–3a.   At the March 25, 2013 hearing, Key Air requested the court to consider its motion for relief from stay which it filed with the Appellate Court on January 4, 2013.³  Although Key Air had specifically requested the court to consider its motion for relief from stay in its objection to the Defendant's Reply Memorandum on the motion to set interest rate, the court agreed with RJM's request to have the matter set for a separate hearing, which hearing took place on April 1, 2013.   RJM had filed its opposition to motion for relief from automatic stay with the Appellate Court on January 10, 2013, arguing that there is no basis on which to conclude that the “due administration of justice” required the lifting of the automatic stay.⁴

At the April 1, 2013 hearing, Key Air requested the court to enter a specific order granting a judgment lien in the amount of the judgment, plus attorneys fees, costs and pre- and postjudgment interest in order to obtain a judgment lien on personal property of RJM—namely, a 1999 Cessna aircraft, Model 560XL, Serial # 560–5052, U.S. registration # N990MF, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) procedures.   Key Air contends that the filing of a judgment lien is not a proceeding to enforce or to carry out the judgment, and, therefore, does not violate the automatic appellate stay under Practice Book § 61–11(a).   Key Air argues, however, that because of regulations set by the FAA, in order to file a judgment lien on an aircraft, FAA requires that Key Air obtain a specific order from the court, and that such a procedure as required by the FAA is the way a lien is filed on a FAA registered aircraft.   In effect, Key Air argues this is analogous to filing a notice of lien on the land records to lien real property, a procedure which requires no court order, and is not a violation of Practice Book § 61–11(a).

Thus, the issue before the court is whether the granting of Key Air's request for a specific order for a judgment lien violates Practice Book § 61–11(a).   The court finds that the filing of a judgment lien is not an impermissible proceeding to enforce a judgment in violation of the automatic appellate stay pursuant to § 61–11(a).   In All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner, 89 Conn.App. 781, 787, 878 A.2d 370 (2005), the Appellate Court determined that because the purpose of a judgment lien is to secure an interest in property, “which allows a creditor to preserve and to protect property with which to satisfy a judgment pending final determination of an action, and because the filing of such a lien is not coextensive with the execution of a judgment, ․ the filing of a judgment lien is not a proceeding to enforce or to carry out the judgment in violation of the automatic appellate stay under Practice Book § 61–11(a).”   Simply because FAA requires a specific order from the court in order to perfect a judgment lien does not make such a procedure an impermissible proceeding in violation of § 61–11(a).   Accordingly, the court is not required to rule on the motion for relief from automatic stay.⁵

The court grants a judgment lien in favor of Key Air, LLC, of Oxford, Connecticut, in its favor, against RJM Aviation Associates, Inc., whose last known business address is 250 Webster Square Road, Berlin, Connecticut, 06037–2329.   The original amount of said judgment is $82,509.59, plus attorneys fees in the amount of $23,325.00, costs in the amount of $486.80, and prejudgment and postjudgment interest to accrue at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum from July 21, 2009, until paid, which as of March 31, 2013, said interests amounts to $29,794.91, which amount remain unsatisfied.   Pursuant to General Statutes, § 52–355a, the judgment lien in favor of said Key Air, LLC, is granted and ordered to be placed upon the following described personal property of RJM Aviation Associates, Inc.:

Aircraft known as the 1999 Cessna, Model 560XL, Serial # 560–5052, U.S. registration # N990MF, including but not limited to (i) all avionics, appliances, appurtenances, components, parts and equipment installed in the aircraft, and (ii) all records (i.e., documentation, certificates, manuals, logbooks, drawings, plans, tags, data, technical records, including traceability records, task cards and information back-to-birth of any and all parts of the aircraft).

SO ORDERED.

Swienton, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. RJM did not file any objection to the motion for attorneys fees..  FN1. RJM did not file any objection to the motion for attorneys fees.

FN2. On February 6, 2013, the Appellate Court granted Key Air's motion for permission to file a late motion to dismiss.   Key Air then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and the court granted that motion stating that “the appeal is dismissed as untimely as to the counterclaim and for a lack of final judgment as to the complaint.”.  FN2. On February 6, 2013, the Appellate Court granted Key Air's motion for permission to file a late motion to dismiss.   Key Air then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and the court granted that motion stating that “the appeal is dismissed as untimely as to the counterclaim and for a lack of final judgment as to the complaint.”

FN3. As is the practice of the Appellate Court, this court received the motion for relief from automatic stay from the Appellate Court with direction to schedule the appropriate hearing on the motion and to notify the Appellate Court of its ruling on the motion..  FN3. As is the practice of the Appellate Court, this court received the motion for relief from automatic stay from the Appellate Court with direction to schedule the appropriate hearing on the motion and to notify the Appellate Court of its ruling on the motion.

FN4. RJM's opposition stated that the court has the power under Practice Book § 61–11(c) to make an exception to the ordinary rule, however, subsection c only applies to family matters..  FN4. RJM's opposition stated that the court has the power under Practice Book § 61–11(c) to make an exception to the ordinary rule, however, subsection c only applies to family matters.

FN5. Because the court finds that the entry of an order granting a judgment lien on the FAA registered aircraft is permissible, the court will not address whether the motion for relief from stay is properly before this court.   Although RJM argued at the April 1, 2013 hearing that the request for the order was not before the court, it was given sufficient notice of Key Air's intention to request a judgment lien on the aircraft, and ample opportunity to be heard regarding the issue..  FN5. Because the court finds that the entry of an order granting a judgment lien on the FAA registered aircraft is permissible, the court will not address whether the motion for relief from stay is properly before this court.   Although RJM argued at the April 1, 2013 hearing that the request for the order was not before the court, it was given sufficient notice of Key Air's intention to request a judgment lien on the aircraft, and ample opportunity to be heard regarding the issue.

Swienton, Cynthia K., J.