Telesco v. Telesco

• Citation: 447 A.2d 752,187 Conn. 715
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 03 August 1982
• Parties: Angelo J. TELESCO v. Dominick W. TELESCO et al.

Page 752

447 A.2d 752

187 Conn. 715

Angelo J. TELESCO v. Dominick W. TELESCO et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 2, 1982.

Decided Aug. 3, 1982.

Bruce L. Levin, Milford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Tobias Weiss, Stamford, for appellees (defendants).

Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and SHEA, JJ.

PARSKEY, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action in two counts, claiming in the first count a dissolution of the defendant corporations and other relief and in the second count a stockholder's derivative suit and an individual action against the named defendant. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court in September 1978. In October 1978 the plaintiff filed motions for the appointment of a temporary receiver and for "such orders ... for ... the management of the ... Corporations ... as may be judged necessary and proper." After a hearing on the motion the trial court, on May 15, 1980, issued a memorandum of decision directing that a judgment enter "denying the application for the appointment of a receiver and for dissolution of the corporation ...." At no time prior thereto had the defendants filed an answer or other responsive pleading to the plaintiff's complaint. On May 31, 1980, the plaintiff filed a notice of intention to appeal the court's decision after the entry of final judgment "which disposes of the cause for all purposes and as respects all parties, specifically having reference to the Second Count of the Plaintiff's Complaint." On June 5, 1980, the defendants filed an answer and three special defenses to the second count of the complaint. On the same date they also filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the second count. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike the special defenses. On July 11 the defendants filed their answer to the first count. On July 30 the court, relying on the factual conclusions contained in its earlier decision and on its further finding that in view of the opposition of the other stockholders "it is difficult to see how Angelo [the plaintiff] could be acting in a representative capacity," granted the motion for summary judgment.

Thereafter the plaintiff moved to open this judgment on the ground that because the pleadings were not closed on the second count the court could not render a summary judgment on this count as a matter of law. Practice Book § 379. On December 12, 1980, the court opened the judgment on the second count, granted the plaintiff's motion to strike, reaffirmed its decision of May 15, 1980, and ordered that judgment enter in accordance therewith. On December 24, 1980, the court issued a supplemental memorandum of decision in which it corrected its decision of December 12 by including therein the decision of July 30 and affirming the May 15 decision in all other respects.

A summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is thus entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book § 384; Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc., 178 Conn. 262, 268, 422 A.2d 311 (1979). The function of the trial court, in summary judgment proceedings, is not to decide issues of material fact but rather to determine whether any such issues exist. Id., 269, 422 A.2d 311. The resolution of genuinely disputed issues must be left to later determination after a full hearing. Ibid.

The trial court's action is fatally flawed in a number of respects. First, it did not address all of the issues raised in the second count. This count contained two separate causes of action, one by the plaintiff individually, the other in a representative capacity. In his individual action the plaintiff alleged that the named defendant coerced him into executing a stockholder's agreement limiting transferability of stock in one of the corporations. The named defendant did not address this claim by way of affidavit and the trial court either overlooked or ignored it. In any event since it does not appear that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this cause there was no basis for the court's action in this respect.

Second, with reference to the derivative action the trial court accepted as undisputed facts its conclusions on the interlocutory motion. The conclusions of a court in an interlocutory proceeding in no way foreclose the rights of parties to present and prosecute their claims fully at the time of the trial on the merits. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 169 Conn. 147, 151, 362 A.2d 889 (1975). Res judicata and collateral estoppel depend on the existence of a valid final judgment on the merits. Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, 163 Conn. 309, 317, 307 A.2d 155 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1116, 93 S.Ct. 903, 34 L.Ed.2d 699 (1973). For the purpose of the summary judgment proceeding whatever factual determinations were made in the interlocutory proceedings were still in dispute.

The defendants' contention that what started as an interlocutory proceeding developed into a trial on the merits of the first count is without merit ¹ for failure of the...