Dorothy Moniti v. Lawrence Moroni (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff Dorothy Moniti instituted this claim for funds due on a promissory note by Complaint dated May 28, 2010.   The defendant Lawrence Moroni filed an Answer and Special Defenses dated August 25, 2010.   Trial was held before the court on July 27, 2011, but the plaintiff elected to withdraw the action after evidence commenced.   The plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Order dated September 12, 2011 asking the court to restore the case to the docket.   The court granted the plaintiff's motion based on its finding that the withdrawal at issue was not made in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 52–80.   The defendant filed an appeal of the court's order restoring the case to the docket, which he subsequently withdrew.   The trial of this matter recommenced and concluded on May 10, 2013.

Plaintiff and plaintiff's daughter, Elizabeth Yavarone, both testified at trial that defendant Lawrence Moroni executed the promissory note at issue on November 1, 1998.   Mr. Moroni, who is Ms. Yavarone's ex-husband, denied ever having executed the note and testified that the signature plaintiff and Ms. Yavarone claimed to be his was, in fact, a forgery.   He did admit, however, that there was a separate promissory note for the same amount that had been paid off.

The promissory note that the plaintiff introduced into evidence is a pre-printed legal form that Ms. Yavarone testified she purchased at Staples.   It contains handwritten entries, including the amount of the note and interest terms.   It also contains the signatures of several witnesses, none of whom testified at trial.   While the promissory note bears a handwritten execution date of November 1, 1998, the pre-printed language on the form includes a notation in the lower right hand corner that reads:  “Rev. 4/99.”   The court interprets this notation as conclusive evidence that the pre-printed form was revised in April 1999 and first available for purchase subsequent to that date, which is several months after the plaintiff and Ms. Yavarone testified that Mr. Moroni executed it.¹  While the court also views Mr. Moroni's testimony with considerable skepticism,² the fact remains that promissory note upon which this action is founded is clearly fraudulent.   In the court's opinion, no further findings are necessary.

Judgment shall enter in defendant's favor on all of plaintiff's claims.

James W. Abrams, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court made this discovery after evidence commenced the first day of trial.   After discussion with counsel in chambers, the plaintiff withdrew her action.   Upon due consideration, the court decided that it would not refer this matter to the State's Attorney based on the plaintiff's advanced age and testimony that Ms. Yavarone suffers from a medical condition that affects her memory..  FN1. The court made this discovery after evidence commenced the first day of trial.   After discussion with counsel in chambers, the plaintiff withdrew her action.   Upon due consideration, the court decided that it would not refer this matter to the State's Attorney based on the plaintiff's advanced age and testimony that Ms. Yavarone suffers from a medical condition that affects her memory.

FN2. The court takes judicial notice of the court's decision in Yavarone v. Jim Moroni's Oil Service, Docket No. CV 03–0012318, Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown (July 17, 2013, Aurigemma, J.), which sheds considerable doubt on the trustworthiness of both Mr. Moroni and Ms. Yavarone..  FN2. The court takes judicial notice of the court's decision in Yavarone v. Jim Moroni's Oil Service, Docket No. CV 03–0012318, Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown (July 17, 2013, Aurigemma, J.), which sheds considerable doubt on the trustworthiness of both Mr. Moroni and Ms. Yavarone.

Abrams, James W., J.