The plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of A, sought, by way of summary
process, to regain possession of certain premises occupied by the defen-
dant. The defendant previously held a life estate in the premises but
had his life estate terminated by the Probate Court. Thereafter, the
plaintiff served the defendant with a notice to quit and, when the defen-
dant failed to vacate the premises, the plaintiff initiated a summary
process action. The defendant was defaulted for failure to plead and
the court rendered a judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant filed a motion to open and an application for a stay of
execution. The court denied the motion to open but granted a limited,
final stay of execution for thirty days. The defendant subsequently filed
a claim of exemption from eviction on behalf of C Co., as occupant of
the property, which the court dismissed, and the defendant appealed
to this court. Held:
1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s
motion to open the judgment of default; the defendant failed to articulate
a good defense and had not met the standard for opening a judgment
pursuant to statute (§ 52-212) because he failed to demonstrate that he
had been prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause
from making his defense and from timely filing his answer.
2. This court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s chal-
lenge to the trial court’s order granting him a limited stay because the
claim was moot; subsequent to the commencement of this appeal, an
automatic stay arose pursuant to statute (§ 47a-35), which was then
vacated by the trial court following the plaintiff’s motion to vacate
because the defendant failed to provide security as set forth in § 47-
35a, and this court denied the defendant’s motion to stay eviction and,
thus, there was no practical relief that this court could afford the defen-
dant by reviewing his claim regarding the propriety of the limited stay
granted in December, 2018; moreover, the defendant’s challenge to the
court’s ruling granting a limited stay was procedurally improper as issues
regarding a stay of execution cannot be raised on direct appeal.
3. This court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s claim
that the trial court improperly dismissed the claim of exemption for
eviction that he filed on behalf of C Co. because the defendant lacked
standing; the defendant was not an attorney licensed to practice law in
this state and, therefore, he lacked standing to maintain any claim on
behalf of C Co.
Argued November 20, 2019—officially released April 14, 2020 Procedural History