Argued
January 4, 2019
Procedural
History
Action
to enforce a judgment, and for other relief, brought to the
Superior Court for the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk
and tried to the court, Hon. Edward R. Karazin, Jr.,
judge trial referee; judgment for the plaintiff; thereafter,
the plaintiff filed a motion to correct, and the defendant
appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed.
Ellery
E. Plotkin, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Thomas
J. Lengyel, for the appellee (defendant).
Keller, Bright and Moll, Js.
OPINION
MOLL,
J.
The
defendant, Jay Shaw, appeals from the judgment of the trial
court, following a bench trial, rendered in favor of the
plaintiff, Premier Capital, LLC (plaintiff LLC). On appeal,
the defendant claims that (1) the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the present case as a result of the
plaintiff LLC's lack of standing, (2) the court erred in
determining that the plaintiff LLC established ownership of
the prior judgment it sought to enforce because there were
breaks in the chain of title, and (3) the court erred in
concluding that his special defense was invalid. We agree
with the defendant on the first claim and, accordingly,
reverse the judgment of the trial court.[1]
The
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
resolution of this appeal. In 1990, Charter Federal Savings
commenced an action against the defendant predicated on a
default on a loan. See Charter Federal Savings v.
Shaw, Superior Court, judicial district of
Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. CV-90-0109612. On August 7,
1991, following a hearing in damages, the trial court
rendered judgment against the defendant and in favor of
Charter Federal Savings in the amount of $293, 259.81,
including costs, attorney's fees, and expenses (1991
judgment).
On
August 5, 2016, the plaintiff LLC commenced the present case
against the defendant. The summons identified the plaintiff
as ‘‘Premier Capital, LLC, '' with a
place of business located at 336 Lowell Street in Wilmington,
Massachusetts. In its operative one count complaint filed on
August 11, 2016, in which ‘‘Premier Capital, LLC,
'' was identified as the plaintiff, the plaintiff LLC
alleged, inter alia, that, following a series of
transactions, it had acquired ownership of the 1991 judgment
and that the 1991 judgment had not been satisfied. As relief,
the plaintiff LLC sought, inter alia, enforcement of the 1991
judgment and postjudgment interest.[2] Thereafter, the defendant
filed an answer and special defenses, [3] and the plaintiff
LLC filed a reply denying the allegations in the special
defenses.
On May
2, 2017, the matter was tried to the court. During trial, the
plaintiff LLC offered and had admitted into evidence several
exhibits that, according to the plaintiff LLC, established a
chain of title demonstrating that it had acquired ownership
of the 1991 judgment in 1998. Notably, none of the exhibits
makes any reference to ‘‘Premier Capital,
LLC''; instead, the plaintiff LLC's exhibit
number one indicates that ‘‘Premier Capital,
Inc., '' which is not a party to the present case,
had acquired certain assets that purportedly included the
1991 judgment. This incongruity was not raised as an issue
during trial.
On
August 8, 2017, the court issued a memorandum of decision in
which it concluded, inter alia, that the plaintiff LLC had
proven the allegations of its complaint by a preponderance of
the evidence, including that it owned the 1991judgment. The
court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff LLC in the
amount of $289, 794.81, [4] plus postjudgment interest at a rate of
4 percent annually. On August 28, 2017, the defendant filed
this appeal.
On
September 13, 2017, the plaintiff LLC filed with the trial
court a postjudgment motion to ‘‘correct the
trial court record'' (motion to correct) to reflect
that the plaintiff in the present case should have been
designated as ‘‘Premier Capital, Inc., ''
rather than ‘‘Premier Capital, LLC.'' The
plaintiff LLC claimed that Premier Capital, Inc., and the
plaintiff LLC are two separate Massachusetts entities
comprised of the same principals and principal offices, and
that Premier Capital, Inc., is the ‘‘proper
entity designation.'' The plaintiff LLC characterized
the listing of ‘‘Premier Capital, LLC, ''
as the plaintiff as a scrivener's error. On October 11,
2017, the court issued an order noting that the present case
is on appeal and, accordingly, the court declined to take any
action on the plaintiff LLC's motion to correct absent
approval from this court.[5]
The
defendant raises on appeal the dispositive claim that the
trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
present case as a result of the plaintiff LLC's lack of
standing. Specifically, the defendant contends that the
evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that Premier Capital,
Inc., rather than the plaintiff LLC, acquired assets
purportedly including the 1991 judgment and that, absent a
real interest in the 1991 judgment, the plaintiff LLC lacked
standing to seek enforcement of the 1991 judgment. In
response, the plaintiff LLC argues that the listing of
...