Ruthanne Sartor v. Donald Grimes, Jr. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a contract action in which both parties have made claims against each other.   All of their claims arise out of their mutual cohabitation at a residence in the town of Lebanon, a relationship which appears to have come to an unhappy end.   The court referred the matter to Attorney James Brennan who, acting as a factfinder under the authority of Gen.Stat. §§ 52–549n et seq., filed a comprehensive report on February 13, 2013.   After taking into account all of the various claims made, his report concluded that defendant should be found indebted to plaintiff in the amount of $3,315.40.   Both parties timely filed objections to the factfinder's report, and this court has conducted a hearing on both objections.

I. Plaintiff's Objection to Factfinder's Report

Plaintiff's sole challenge to the report is that the factfinder confused her testimony as to what was paid with what was still owed.   There is no dispute that she incurred a debt at a bank in the amount of $10,000 and delivered the proceeds to defendant to assist in his meeting the closing costs on the Lebanon residence, nor that he agreed to repay her this amount.   According to her objection, she “stipulated” at the trial to having received $3,315.40 from him;  which would leave $6,684.60 ¹ still due her.   She now asserts that the factfinder inverted the numbers, and thus credited defendant with the balance due instead of its reciprocal.   Her objection demands that this court reverse the two figures.

II. Defendant's Objection to Factfinder's Report

Defendant's counterclaim alleges a series of contractual commitments on plaintiff's part which, he claims, entitle him to a judgment exceeding the balance due on his obligation to repay plaintiff the borrowed amount.   He contends that the factfinder erred in his interpretation of a purported lease agreement between the parties, and further erred by finding unsubstantiated his various claims for damages to the premises and nonpayment of certain utility and other charges.

III. Discussion

Both Gen Stat. § 52–549s and Practice Book § 23–58 make clear that a court reviewing a litigant's objection to a factfinder's report may exercise its discretion to 1) render judgment in accordance with the finding of facts;  (2) reject the finding of facts and remand the case to the fact finder who originally heard the matter for a rehearing on all or part of the finding of facts;  (3) reject the finding of facts and remand the matter to another fact finder for rehearing;  (4) reject the finding of facts and revoke the reference;  (5) remand the case to the fact finder who originally heard the matter for a finding on an issue raised in an objection which was not addressed in the original finding of facts;  or (6) take any other action the judicial authority may deem appropriate.   Neither that last, seemingly plenary provision nor any of the others empowers a reviewing authority to substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts;  Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc., 20 Conn.App. 420 (1989)), cert. denied, 214 Conn. 804 (1990);  Post Road Iron Works, Inc. v. Lexington Development Group, Inc., 54 Conn.App. 534 (1994);  Beucler v. Lloyd, 83 Conn.App. 731 (1999).

Recently, in Data Flow Technologies, LLC. v. Hartre Nissan, Inc., 111 Conn.App. 118 (2008), the Appellate Court described the interrelationship of the factfinding and the adjudicative functions thus:

While the reports ․ in such cases are essentially of an advisory nature, it has not been the practice to disturb their findings when they are properly based upon evidence, in the absence of errors of law, and the parties have no right to demand that the court shall redetermine the fact thus found ․ A reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts.   This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court ․ the Appellate Court ․ or the Superior Court reviewing the findings of ․ attorney trial referees ․ This court has articulated that attorney trial referees and factfinders share the same function ․ whose determination of the facts is reviewable in accordance with well established procedures prior to the rendition of judgment by the court.  (Citations omitted.)

111 Conn.App. 118, 127.

Plaintiff's claims regarding her testimony were supported here by nothing more than the arguments of her attorney.   She did not file a transcript of the trial testimony, nor indeed did she document in any other manner that what the factfinder heard is as she now says it was.   A challenge to a factfinder's report, unaccompanied by a transcript of the evidence before the factfinder, provides no basis to reject or modify the report submitted;  Meadows v. Higgins, 249 Conn. 155 (1999);  Furlin v. Broadway Kitchens and Baths of Connecticut, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford # CV 10 6005827 (2012;  Tierney, J.).   Indeed, a review of the exhibits in the record reveals that there were different assertions of amounts paid which contradict what plaintiff has claimed in this hearing and which were properly delegated to the factfinder to resolve.

Similarly, defendant's essential argument on his objection is that the factfinder did not get it right.   Specifically, he faults the finding that the written leases he introduced did not reflect a true arm's-length landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, and also quarrels with the factfinder's conclusions as to payments and credits due from each party to the other, and the treatment of his demand for damages done by plaintiff to his residence.   All of these issues were presented to the factfinder accompanied by defendant's evidence as to each and every claim, and it is no basis for a rejection of the report that defendant is unsatisfied with the factfinder's resolution of the contested factual issues.

IV. Conclusion and Orders

This court has reviewed the entire file in this case, including the exhibits submitted at trial by each party.   It has read the 13–page factfinder's report carefully, and finds that report to be thorough, clear, logical, based upon evidence in the record and consistent with the law.

Plaintiff's objection to the factfinder's report is overruled.

Defendant's objection to the factfinder's report is overruled.

Judgment shall enter for plaintiff in the amount of $3315.40.

Boland, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. One may note that the sum of $3,315.40 and $6,684.60 add up to $10,000.   The objection instead demands a judgment for $6,684.30, which is thirty cents less.   Plaintiff explained at the hearing that the difference is attributable to a slight overpayment of interest on defendant's part..  FN1. One may note that the sum of $3,315.40 and $6,684.60 add up to $10,000.   The objection instead demands a judgment for $6,684.30, which is thirty cents less.   Plaintiff explained at the hearing that the difference is attributable to a slight overpayment of interest on defendant's part.

Boland, John D., J.