Opinion
CV156023207
04-21-2016
Cliff's Auto Body, Inc. v. Frances Grenier
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/MOTION TO DISMISS (#134.00)
James J. Devine, J.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Cliff's Auto Body, Inc., filed a complaint for foreclosure of a judgment lien on January 29, 2015. In that complaint, the plaintiff alleges the following facts. On December 30, 2008, a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff against Frances Grenier in the amount of $9, 887.22. The judgment remained unsatisfied and the plaintiff caused a judgment lien to be filed against property owned by Frances Grenier in Voluntown, Connecticut. On February 23, 2009, Frances Grenier appealed the judgment of the trial court. On appeal, the Appellate Court, on April 14, 2010, stated that it could not address the matter because there was no ruling on pre and postjudgment interest and therefore, the decision was not a final judgment. Following the Appellate Court's decision, the plaintiff filed a motion for determination of the amount of prejudgment interest on April 13, 2010. The court ordered pre and postjudgment interest at ten percent. No other appeals were made.
After Frances Grenier passed away, the defendant, Carl Grenier, acquired title to the property by way of a certificate of devise, descent, or distribution on May 30, 2014. The certificate conveyed the property " subject to and together with a previously filed judgment lien and claim of Cliff's Auto Body, Inc. as recorded in the Voluntown Land Records." The judgment lien of this case is the only encumbrance on the property.
On October 28, 2015, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff's lien is flawed and unenforceable because it was based on a judgment that was not final. The defendant's motion was accompanied by a memorandum in support of the motion. The defendant filed an objection to the motion on October 30, 2015. The case was reassigned to this court, Devine, J., after the defendant filed a motion for disqualification of judicial authority on December 11, 2015. After reassignment, the court, Devine J., ordered the parties to file post-hearing memoranda. The plaintiff filed its memorandum on January 21, 2016, and the defendant his memorandum on January 22, 2016.
The court will address the motion as though it is a motion to dismiss because it argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
" [O]nce the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, it must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented . . . and the court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 429, 541 A.2d 1216 (1988). " [A] subject matter jurisdictional defect may not be waived . . . [or jurisdiction] conferred by the parties, explicitly or implicitly . . . [T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law . . . and, once raised, either by a party or by the court itself, the question must be answered before the court may decide the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277, 283, 914 A.2d 996 (2007).
The defendant argues that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because when the plaintiff filed its judgment lien the judgment was not final and therefore the lien is not valid. The defendant also argues that the Probate Court should have jurisdiction over this matter. The plaintiff argues that the judgment lien was valid because while the judgment was not ripe for appeal, it was a valid judgment for the purpose of filing a judgment lien.
" [T]he filing of a judgment lien is more like a prejudgment attachment, which is merely a charge upon the property . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner, 89 Conn.App. 781, 786, 878 A.2d 370 (2005). " [T]he purpose of a judgment lien is to secure an interest in real property, which allows a creditor to preserve and to protect property with which to satisfy a judgment pending final determination of an action . . ." (Emphasis added.) Id., 787. During an appeal of a judgment, " the proceeding that is clearly barred is an action to foreclose [a] lien." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 786.
In Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DiLoreto, 238 Conn. 172, 183, 679 A.2d 340 (1996), our Supreme Court held that a " creditor seeking to assert priority rights pursuant to § § 52-328(b) and 52-380a(b) must file a judgment lien within four months of a trial court's final judgment in the creditor's favor." The plaintiff in that case won a judgment against the defendant in the trial court, but that judgment was appealed, overturned, and remanded back to the trial court for a new trial. Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DiLoreto, supra, 174. On remand, the trial court again found in favor of the plaintiff. Id. The plaintiff then filed a " certificate of judgment lien" on the defendant's property. Id. On appeal, our Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the certificate of judgment did not relate back to the prejudgment attachment and the plaintiff could not foreclose on that lien because it was filed later than four months after the judgment of the trial court. Id., 176. The plaintiff in that case was required to file the judgment lien within four months of the original judgment regardless of the pending appeal. Id., 180. " Appellate review can go forward regardless of when the lien is filed. If the debtor pursues an appeal, execution of the judgment lien would presumably be stayed, unless the stay were expressly lifted . . . If the debtor prevails on appeal, the stay would presumably extend until a new judgment, after a new trial, determines the final outcome of the dispute between the parties." (Citations omitted.) Id., 181-82.
In the present case, the plaintiff was required to file its judgment lien within four months of the original judgment, which it did, regardless of whether the judgment was appealed. It can be inferred from the ruling in Mac's Car City, Inc. that a judgment lien filed before an appeal is completed is still valid, even if the judgment the lien is based upon is overturned on that appeal. In this case, the plaintiff, as required, filed its judgment lien within four months of the original judgment. The ruling was appealed and then remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of interest. Even though the Appellate Court ruled that the trial court's judgment was not final, the lien filed after the original judgment remains valid. Further, the plaintiff here did not attempt to foreclose on the lien during the appeals process, which would be barred. The plaintiff has a valid lien against the property.
The defendant also argues that this court does not have jurisdiction because the Probate Court controls this issue. General Statutes § 45a-98 provides the powers of the Probate Court. The claim before the court now is for foreclosure of a judgment lien, a matter that the Probate Court does not have authority over, pursuant to § 45a-98. While the present issue is intertwined with the devising of an estate, the claim before the court does not make a claim against the estate, but against property that passed through the Probate Court to the defendant. The property was devised to the defendant subject to the foreclosure lien. The present case makes no claims against the estate of Frances Grenier and is for the foreclosure of a lien, which the Probate Court does not have jurisdiction over; therefore, this court does have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
General Statutes § 45a-98 provides as follows; " (a) Courts of probate in their respective districts shall have the power to (1) grant administration of intestate estates of persons who have died domiciled in their districts and of intestate estates of persons not domiciled in this state which may be granted as provided by section 45a-303; (2) admit wills to probate of persons who have died domiciled in their districts or of nondomiciliaries whose wills may be proved in their districts as provided in section 45a-287; (3) except as provided in section 45a-98a or as limited by an applicable statute of limitations, determine title or rights of possession and use in and to any real, tangible or intangible property that constitutes, or may constitute, all or part of any trust, any decedent's estate, or any estate under control of a guardian or conservator, which trust or estate is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Probate Court, including the rights and obligations of any beneficiary of the trust or estate and including the rights and obligations of any joint tenant with respect to survivorship property; (4) except as provided in section 45a-98a, construe the meaning and effect of any will or trust agreement if a construction is required in connection with the administration or distribution of a trust or estate otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Probate Court, or, with respect to an inter vivos trust, if that trust is or could be subject to jurisdiction of the court for an accounting pursuant to section 45a-175, provided such an accounting need not be required; (5) except as provided in section 45a-98a, apply the doctrine of cy pres or approximation; (6) to the extent provided for in section 45a-175, call executors, administrators, trustees, guardians, conservators, persons appointed to sell the land of minors, and attorneys-in-fact acting under powers of attorney created in accordance with section 45a-562, to account concerning the estates entrusted to their charge; and (7) make any lawful orders or decrees to carry into effect the power and jurisdiction conferred upon them by the laws of this state."
ORDER
The defendant's motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss #134.00 is hereby denied.