Housing Authority of City of Stamford v. Lamothe

• Decision Date: 08 June 1993
• Docket Number: No. 14603,14603
• Citation: 627 A.2d 367,225 Conn. 757
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF STAMFORD v. Fritz LAMOTHE et al.

Page 367

627 A.2d 367

225 Conn. 757

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF STAMFORD v. Fritz LAMOTHE et al.

No. 14603.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 31, 1993.

Decided June 8, 1993.

Dennis J. O'Brien, Willimantic, with whom were Richard L. Tenenbaum, Danbury, and Roberta Hatch, Stamford, for appellant (defendant Lucienne Lamothe).

Mark H. Henderson, with whom, on the brief, was Eric M. Higgins, Stamford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BERDON, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.

KATZ, Associate Justice.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether, under the facts of this case, the trial court improperly denied the defendant tenant, Lucienne Lamothe, ¹ an opportunity to present evidence of duress and mistake in support of her motion to open a judgment by stipulation in a summary process action. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the defendant had been provided an adequate opportunity to be heard. Housing Authority v. Lamothe, 27 Conn.App. 755, 761, 610 A.2d 695 (1992). We thereafter granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal to this court. ² Housing Authority v. Lamothe, 223 Conn. 915, 614 A.2d 822 (1992). We conclude that the trial court improperly denied the defendant an opportunity to present evidence in support of her motion to open, and therefore, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and direct that the case be remanded to the trial court.

The opinion of the Appellate Court set forth the following relevant facts. "In August, 1990, the plaintiff Stamford Housing Authority instituted a summary process action to recover possession of the premises at 213 Connecticut Avenue in Stamford for nonpayment of rent. Named as defendants in the summary process action in addition to Lucienne Lamothe were her husband and her two daughters. The plaintiff alleged that they failed to pay the July, 1990 rent. On July 20, 1990, a notice to quit possession was served. On September 21, 1990, the defendant and her husband filed answers admitting all the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint. They did not raise any special defense other than alleging that they untimely paid the outstanding rental fee on July 21, 1990. On October 11, 1990, the defendant and her daughters met with a rental agent and an attorney for the plaintiff. This meeting resulted in the parties' entering into a stipulated agreement under which judgment would enter in favor of the plaintiff with a final stay of execution until February 28, 1991. The defendant agreed to pay the outstanding arrearage of $1018 along with use and occupancy fees. The defendant agreed to vacate the premises on February 28, 1991. The court questioned the defendant about her understanding of this agreement. On October 11, 1990, the court rendered judgment in accordance with the stipulation. The defendant signed the judgment pro se.

"On December 21, 1990, the defendant, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion to open the judgment. In her motion, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff's agent told her not to seek the assistance of counsel and that she was informed on October 11 that if she did not sign the stipulation she would be evicted immediately. She claimed that she entered into the stipulation without understanding its terms or the consequences of agreeing to a final stay of execution until February 28, 1991. The defendant also claimed that her husband, who had supported the family, abandoned her and the children in September, 1990. In the affidavit that accompanied the motion to open, the defendant acknowledged that she had read the motion to open and that the statements contained in it were true. The motion to open indicated that testimony would be required. The defendant maintains that she would not have signed the stipulation if she had had the assistance of counsel." Housing Authority v. Lamothe, supra, 27 Conn.App. at 756-58, 610 A.2d 695.

On January 17, 1991, the trial court, Melville, J., heard the parties' arguments on the motion to open the judgment. Through her counsel, the defendant argued that she had entered into the stipulation on October 11, 1990, without the assistance of counsel and without the benefit of an interpreter. Although the defendant might have been entitled to raise two defenses, she believed that her only alternative was to sign the stipulation in exchange for a brief reprieve from eviction for herself and her six children. Otherwise, the defendant believed that she and her family would have been evicted within five days. Her attorney argued that when the defendant signed the stipulation, "although it was voluntary, it certainly was not knowing, and she waived her right to trial, she waived her right to reinstatement without understanding either of those things."

The trial court concluded that the defendant was claiming either that the court's canvass had been insufficient, or, in the alternative, that opposing counsel and the court appointed housing specialist ³ had been "oppressive or unethical" in the manner in which they had conducted their discussion. The court refused to consider the defendant's first claim because the defendant was unable, at that time, to produce a copy of the transcript of the court's canvass. The trial court then determined that the defendant's other claim, that she did not believe she had any options other than to agree to the stipulation, was an attack on the integrity of opposing counsel. The defendant explained that her challenge to the judgment was not an attack on counsel for the housing authority but was rather addressed to her lack of understanding that she had other available options. The defendant contended that she had not exercised these options because she had not been aware of them, and the housing specialist had advised her not to seek the advice of an attorney. The defendant told the trial court that she could have asserted the defense of no good cause ⁴ or of equitable relief from forfeiture ⁵ at trial. The defendant also suggested that there were a myriad of possibilities by way of negotiation that could have been explored with the assistance of counsel, including the possibility of reinstatement upon payment of back rent and costs. ⁶

The trial court concluded that neither the defense of no good cause nor the defense of equitable relief from forfeiture is legally cognizable in Connecticut, and, consequently, that it would have been a futile effort for the defendant to secure a transcript. The court then chastised the defendant for failing to be prepared to proceed with her evidence and denied the defendant's motion to open. The defendant thereafter appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Housing Authority v. Lamothe, supra, 27 Conn.App. at 761, 610 A.2d 695. We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal to decide whether, in the circumstances of this case, the trial court improperly denied the defendant an opportunity to introduce evidence in support of her motion to open. We conclude that it did.

I

Before proceeding to the merits of this appeal, we must first address an issue of subject matter jurisdiction that arose due to a change in the defendant's circumstances. Gagnon v. Planning Commission, 222 Conn. 294, 297, 608 A.2d 1181 (1992); Sadlowski v. Manchester, 206 Conn. 579, 583, 538 A.2d 1052 (1988); Kulmacz v. Kulmacz, 177 Conn. 410, 412, 418 A.2d 76 (1979). Following the Appellate Court's affirmance of the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to open the stipulated judgment, and shortly before this court granted her certification to appeal, the defendant and her children voluntarily vacated the subject premises. The plaintiff contends that because the defendant no longer occupies the premises, no practical relief can result from a determination of the issue presented on appeal. Consequently, the plaintiff argues that this appeal is moot. ⁷ Tomasso Bros., Inc. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc., 221 Conn. 194, 201-202, 602 A.2d 1011 (1992); New Haven v. Konstandinidis, 29 Conn.App. 139, 141, 612 A.2d 822, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 920, 618 A.2d 527 (1992).

"Mootness applies to situations where events have occurred during the pendency of an appeal that make an appellate court incapable of granting practical relief through a disposition on the merits." Papagorgiou v. Anastopoulous, 29 Conn.App. 142, 146, 613 A.2d 853, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 919, 920, 618 A.2d 527 (1992); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177, 181, 527 A.2d 688 (1987). Summary process appeals are particularly susceptible to becoming moot upon some action taken by the parties. See, e.g., Garcia v. Brooks Street Associates, 209 Conn. 15, 546 A.2d 275 (1988) (plaintiff tenants vacated premises and no longer wished to occupy the building). "It is a well- settled general rule that the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Perry v. Perry, 222 Conn. 799, 803, 611 A.2d 400 (1992); Moshier v. Goodnow, 217 Conn. 303, 307, 586 A.2d 557 (1991); Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 571, 499 A.2d 1158 (1985).

The defendant argues that she may obtain practical relief in the form of a writ of restoration should she prevail in this appeal and on remand. Du Bouchet v. Wharton, 12 Conn. 533, 539-40 (1838); Evergreen Manor Associates v. Farrell, 9 Conn.App. 77, 78, 515 A.2d 1081 (1986). The defendant admits that she and her family left the public housing provided by the plaintiff. She maintains, however, that her departure was compelled by the existing eviction order: if her petition for certification had not been granted, she would have been faced with an eviction within...