Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
Decision Date | 09 July 2002 |
Docket Number | (AC 21320) |
Citation | 70 Conn. App. 790,802 A.2d 126 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | ROXANN AMES v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES |
Schaller, Mihalakos and Dranginis, Js. Joanne S. Faulkner, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Gary M. Case, for the appellee (intervening defendant Western Surety Company).
The plaintiff, Roxann Ames, appeals from the judgment of the trial court affirming the decision and award by the defendant commissioner of motor vehicles (commissioner) that, in accordance with General Statutes § 14-52,1 she is not entitled to recover punitive damages and attorney's fees under the surety bond issued by Western Surety Company (Western Surety).2 On appeal, the plaintiff, in essence, raises two claims, namely, that (1) the doctrine of res judicata barred the commissioner from finding Western Surety liable under the surety bond for actual damages only and (2) the court improperly concluded, as a matter of law, that § 14-52 precludes an award for punitive damages and attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiffs appeal. The underlying event in this case involved the plaintiff and A.P.L. Auto Consulting, Inc., also known as Discount Auto Sales, a used automobile dealer (dealer). In 1995, the plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle from the dealer. Over protest by the plaintiff, in 1997, the dealer repossessed the vehicle. As a result of the repossession, the plaintiff filed an action against the dealer, alleging, in pertinent part, breach of contract and unfair trade practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The plaintiff demanded statutory, actual, punitive and treble damages. The court rendered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff after the dealer failed to appear and awarded damages in the amount of $20,286.40 plus costs of $280.60. The award included punitive damages and attorney's fees.3
Subsequently, the dealer went out of business and failed to pay the judgment. Pursuant to § 14-52, however, the dealer had obtained a surety bond for $20,000, which was issued by Western Surety. After the expiration of the 180 day waiting period of General Statutes § 52-400e,4 the commissioner invoked the surety bond on the plaintiffs behalf. The commissioner noted the court's prior award of damages, but found that the plaintiff suffered actual damages of $5650, an amount consisting of her down payment, financing payment and costs. The commissioner then concluded that the balance of the court's award of attorney's fees and punitive damages was not "recoverable under the subject bond," as set forth in § 14-52, and thus ordered Western Surety to pay $5650 to the state of Connecticut for the benefit of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a petition for reconsideration, which the commissioner denied. The plaintiff then appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183. In affirming the decision of the commissioner, the court concluded that § 14-52, the surety bond requirement statute, precludes an award of punitive damages and attorney's fees. This appeal followed.
The plaintiff first contends that the court's award of damages of $20,286.40 constituted a final judgment, and, therefore, the doctrine of res judicata barred the commissioner from disturbing that award and finding the surety liable for only $5650. We are not persuaded.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Richards v. Richards, 67 Conn. App. 381, 383, 786 A.2d 1247 (2001). "It is axiomatic that in applying the doctrine of res judicata we remain cognizant that [t]he scope of matters precluded necessarily depends on what has occurred in the former adjudication." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 384.
We conclude that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the commissioner's, and subsequently the court's, determination in the present case. The issues before the court that rendered judgment against the dealer greatly differed from those before the commissioner and the court in the subsequent action. In the action against the dealer, the court was faced with a controversy solely between the dealer and the plaintiff after the dealer wrongfully had repossessed the plaintiffs motor vehicle.
The issue regarding the extent of the liability of Western Surety pursuant to the surety bond provision was not before the court in the prior action against the dealer. In fact, it was not until after the judgment was rendered against the dealer that the dealer went out of business, thereby implicating Western Surety in the situation. Moreover, the issues before the commissioner, and subsequently before the court on appeal from the commissioner's decision, consisted of whether the dealer's actions triggered the surety bond provision, and Western Surety's liability, pursuant to § 14-52. The determinations of the commissioner and the court solely referred to Western Surety's liability and did not disturb the prior judgment regarding the dealer's liability for wrongful repossession. We conclude, therefore, that the commissioner's decision holding Western Surety liable for an amount of $5650 pursuant to the surety bond was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.5
We now address the plaintiffs primary claim that this court should set aside the judgment of the trial court because, pursuant to § 14-52, she was entitled to recover punitive damages and attorney's fees from Western Surety. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the phrase contained in § 14-52 (b) (4) that the surety bond will be "provided as indemnity for any loss sustained by any person by reason of any acts of the licensee constituting grounds for suspension or revocation of the license or such licensee going out of business," necessarily includes punitive damages and attorney's fees. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the plaintiff argues, the court improperly concluded, as a matter of law, that § 14-52 precludes an award of punitive damages and attorney's fees. We are not persuaded.
In this case, because the surety bond itself is not part of the record, nor do the parties invoke its terms, the dispositive issue to determine is whether § 14-52 confers on the plaintiff the right to recover punitive damages and attorney's fees. That issue is a matter of statutory interpretation, as well as an issue of first impression for this court, over which our review is plenary.6 See Smith v. Smith, 249 Conn. 265, 280, 752 A.2d 1023 (1999). Several well settled principles govern our interpretation of § 14-52. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Southington v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 254 Conn. 348, 357, 757 A.2d 549 (2000).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Caltabiano v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 662, 666-67, 560 A.2d 975 (1989).
Before directly analyzing the issue, an explanation of basic principles governing suretyship law provides guidance. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Southington v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C & I Steel v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co., 06-P-851.
...48 N.Y.2d 127, 421 N.Y.S.2d 869, 397 N.E.2d 380 (1979). See also Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 70 Conn.App.Ct. 790, 792-795, 802 A.2d 126 (2002), aff'd, 267 Conn. 524, 839 A.2d 1250 (2004). See generally Kearsarge, 383 Mass. at 170 n. 12, 418 N.E.2d Because Travelers was entitled ......
-
Stonington Water St. Assoc. Llc v. Hodess Bldg. Co. Inc.
...[T]he liability of sureties is to be determined by the specific conditions of the bond.” Id. (quoting Ames v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, 70 Conn.App. 790, 797, 802 A.2d 126 (App.Ct.2002)). A surety's obligation under a bond only matures if the obligee complies with all conditions precedent. ......
-
Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
...[trial] court concluded that § 14-52 ... precludes an award of punitive damages and attorney's fees." Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 70 Conn. App. 790, 792-93, 802 A.2d 126 (2002). The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Id., 8......
-
Arch Ins. Co. v. Centerplan Constr. Co.
.... . . The liability of sureties is to be determined by the specific conditions of the bond." Id. (quoting Ames v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, 70 Conn. App. 790, 797 (App. Ct. 2002)). A court looks to "standard principles of contract interpretation to determine the rights and obligations of a ......