February 20, 2018
to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and
for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court,
Povodator, J.; judgment in part for the plaintiff,
from which the defendant appealed to this court.
Moss, for the appellant (defendant).
Benjamin M. Wattenmaker, with whom, on the brief, was John M.
Wolfson, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Alvord, Keller and Bishop, Js.
defendant, Steve Sudhir Chainani, appeals from the judgment
of the trial court, in which it concluded that he breached
his guaranty obligation to the plaintiff, Jack Ajluni. On
appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly
determined that the applicable statute of limitations did not
bar the action because (1) the relation back doctrine applied
to the plaintiff's claim and (2) certain communications
between the plaintiff and the defendant reaffirmed the debt
so as to toll the statute of limitations on the
plaintiff's claim. We conclude that certain e-mails exchanged
between the parties reaffirmed the debt and, accordingly,
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
court's memorandum of decision details the relevant facts
and procedural history. ‘‘On or about August 13,
2008, the plaintiff loaned Chainani Associates, LLC (Chainani
Associates) . . . a Connecticut limited liability company,
the sum of $200, 000, as evidenced by the [Chainani
Associates'] Secured Promissory Note . . . in said
principal amount. . . . The note was secured by a [mortgage]
of the same date executed by the borrower on the
borrower's real property in Stamford, Connecticut . . . .
To further secure the note, the [d]efendant executed a
written personal guaranty . . . of payment of all obligations
of the borrower under the note. . . . [T]he maturity date of
the note was November 11, 2008. . . .
mortgaged property was part of the borrower's adjacent
properties on Summer Street consisting of two low rise office
buildings that the borrower intended to redevelop with a
residential tower. The loan served to finance legal,
engineering, and other expenses incurred in connection with
obtaining certain significant zoning and other approvals
required for the project. However, by November, 2008,
although the borrower had succeeded, at least in part, in
obtaining approvals, the market crashed and ultimately a
senior mortgage lender foreclosed on the property.
payment has been made on the note or pursuant to the
Guaranty. On or about July 19, 2010, in the Superior Court of
the state of California, county of San Mateo, the plaintiff
filed an action, CIV 497018 (California action) against the
defendant on the guaranty. On or about July 26, 2010, service
of the California summons and complaint was made upon the
defendant at his residence in New Canaan, Connecticut. The
defendant did not appear in the California action.
Consequently, thereafter, on motion of the plaintiff, on or
about October 12, 2010, a default judgment was entered in the
California action in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of
$304, 086.52. . . .
action was commenced in February, 2014, the single count
alleging nonpayment of the California judgment and seeking to
domesticate [that judgment].
November 18, 2014, the plaintiff filed a proposed amended
complaint . . . that added additional counts for breach of
contract (count two), breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing (count three), and unjust enrichment (count
four). These additional counts allege nonpayment of the
January of 2015, the plaintiff attempted to amend his
complaint further, seeking to add counts alleging
misrepresentation and fraud; an objection ...