Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beck & Beck, LLC v. Costello

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

November 21, 2017

BECK AND BECK, LLC
v.
JAMES T. COSTELLO

          Argued Date: September 25, 2017

          James T. Costello, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

          Kenneth A. Beck, for the appellees (plaintiff and counterclaim defendant).

          DiPentima, C. J., and Elgo and Harper, Js.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

          The defendant, James T. Costello, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his amended counterclaims and cross claims against the plaintiff, Beck & Beck, LLC, and the counterclaim defendant, Kenneth A. Beck. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court erroneously dismissed his counterclaims and cross claims for lack of standing after finding that the claims belonged to his bankruptcy estate and not to him. We disagree, and accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         The following facts and procedural history are taken from our opinion in a prior appeal in this case.[1] ‘‘On August 30, 2011, the plaintiff filed this action in small claims court against the defendant seeking to recover unpaid legal fees for its prior representation of the defendant in a receivership action against the defendant's condominium association. The defendant . . . filed an answer, a special defense, and a four count counterclaim alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, professional malpractice, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. After the case was transferred [to the regular docket], the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant's entire counterclaim on the ground that the defendant's claims were legally insufficient because he [could not] possibly establish proximate cause or damages . . . . The trial court, Levin, J., granted the plaintiff's motion to strike.

         ‘‘The defendant thereafter moved to cite in the plaintiff's principal, Attorney Kenneth A. Beck, individually, as a counterclaim defendant. After the court granted the defendant's motion to cite in Beck, the defendant filed an amended answer, a special defense, and counterclaim against the plaintiff, and a parallel cross claim against Attorney Beck. The amended counterclaim and parallel cross claim pleaded claims that were essentially identical to those pleaded in the defendant's stricken counterclaim. The plaintiff thereafter moved to strike the defendant's amended counterclaim on two grounds: first, that the defendant could not prevail on any claim set forth in his counterclaim because he could not prove the causation or damages elements of any such claim; and second, that [t]he counterclaims and cross claims mirror the previously stricken counterclaims.

         ‘‘The court, Sommer, J., granted the plaintiff's motion to strike. . . . The court determined that the defendant had failed to submit a justiciable claim to the court, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction, that is, the authority to decide those claims on their merits, because it lacks jurisdiction as a matter of law. The court rendered judgment on the counterclaim and cross claim on October 7, 2013 . . . .'' (Footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Beck & Beck, LLC v. Costello, 159 Conn.App. 203, 205-206, 122 A.3d 269 (2015). The defendant appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the plaintiff's motion to strike.

         While the defendant's first appeal was pending, the trial on the plaintiff's claims proceeded. Following the trial, the plaintiff was awarded $750 in unpaid legal fees, plus costs. During the pendency of the defendant's first appeal, and after trial on the plaintiff's claims, the defendant filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. The defendant completed a chapter 7 voluntary petition, on which he listed certain financial information, including the $750 judgment owed to the plaintiff as an unsecured nonpriority claim. He also noted the underlying action under the section titled ‘‘Suits and administrative proceedings, executions, garnishments and attachments.'' On the defendant's schedule B-personal property form, however, the defendant checked ‘‘[n]one'' where the form asks for a description of ‘‘[o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including . . . counterclaims of the debtor . . . .'' On September 17, 2014, the bankruptcy trustee issued a report (report of no distribution) determining that ‘‘[t]here is no property available for distribution from the estate.'' The defendant's bankruptcy case was closed on November 13, 2014.

         Prior to oral argument in the first appeal, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that because the Bankruptcy Court had not made a judicial determination that the defendant's counterclaims and cross claims were abandoned, the defendant was not the real party in interest as the claims still belonged to the bankruptcy estate. At oral argument before this court in 2015, we noted that the issue of whether the defendant had standing was one for the trial court to address on a motion to dismiss and, therefore, we allowed the appeal to proceed. This court reversed the trial court's order granting the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's amended counterclaims and cross claims, and remanded the defendant's claims to the trial court for further proceedings. See Beck & Beck, LLC v. Costello, supra, 159 Conn.App. 208-209.

         Prior to a trial on the defendant's amended counterclaims and cross claims, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the defendant lacked standing and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant. On February 26, 2016, the court, Arnold, J., granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's amended counterclaims and cross claims, determining that the defendant did not have standing because the bankruptcy trustee had not abandoned those claims.[2] This appeal followed.

         We first set forth the applicable standard of review.

         ‘‘A determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. When . . . the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fairfield Merrittview Ltd. Partnership v.Nor-walk, 320 Conn. 535, 548, 133 A.3d 140 (2016). ‘‘When a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light. . . . In this regard, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader. . . . The motion to dismiss . . . admits all facts which are well pleaded, invokes the existing record and must be decided upon that alone. . . . In undertaking this review, we are mindful ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.