Beck & Beck, LLC v. Costello
Decision Date | 21 November 2017 |
Docket Number | AC 39034 |
Citation | 174 A.3d 227,178 Conn.App. 112 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | BECK AND BECK, LLC v. James T. COSTELLO |
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.
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.
(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. at 208–209, 122 A.3d 269.
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. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fairfield Merrittview Ltd. Partnership v. Norwalk , 320 Conn. 535, 548, 133 A.3d 140 (2016). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dorry v. Garden , 313 Conn. 516, 521, 98 A.3d 55 (2014).
The defendant maintains that the bankruptcy trustee abandoned the amended counterclaims and cross claims when she submitted the report of no distribution and closed the defendant's bankruptcy case. The plaintiff responds that because the defendant did not list the amended counterclaims and cross claims on his bankruptcy petition, the trustee never abandoned...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rider v. Rider
...debtor, are assets of the bankruptcy estate that must be scheduled for the benefit of the creditors .... Beck & Beck, LLC v. Costello , 178 Conn. App. 112, 117, 174 A.3d 227 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1000, 176 A.3d 555 (2018). [W]here a debtor fails to list a claim as an asset on a ba......
-
DAB Three, LLC v. Landamerica Fin. Grp., Inc.
...correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Beck & Beck, LLC v. Costello , 178 Conn. App. 112, 116, 174 A.3d 227 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1000, 176 A.3d 555 (2018). The plaintiff does not challenge the factual basis upon which......
-
Rider v. Rider
...... This is so regardless of whether the failure to schedule causes of action is innocent." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 118. In present case, the plaintiff lacks standing. In his 2014 bankruptcy petition,[5] the plaintiff never disclosed his actual or potential interest in Unit......
-
U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Madison
...action is innocent." (Citations omitted; emphasis added; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Beck & Beck, LLC v. Costello , 178 Conn. App. 112, 117–18, 174 A.3d 227, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1000, 176 A.3d 555 (2018).In Beck & Beck, LLC , the defendant filed a chapter 7 bankru......