Opinion
No. 4004422
October 20, 2006
MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS COMPLAINT
This is a foreclosure court action brought by the plaintiff against defendants Larry D. Grisham and Shirley E. Steinke, the owners of equity of the subject real property, 15 Ann Street, Norwich, to foreclose a mortgage in favor of the plaintiff from said defendants. The plaintiffs named defendant State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services as a party defendant because the Department of Social Services had recorded two Public Assistance Liens against the subject property to secure the reimbursement of $51,493.81 in public assistance granted to, and on behalf of, defendant Grisham and $31,439.00 in public assistance granted to, and on behalf of, defendant Steinke. The court entered a judgment of foreclosure by sale on March 27, 2006, and the subject real property was sold by the Committee on July 22, 2006.
The defendant Larry D. Grisham filed the cross complaint against the State of Connecticut Department of Social Services dated July 24, 2006. The defendant contends that during the course of the foreclosure action, he attempted to market his property on a private basis. He could not consummate a private sale due to the amount of the state Public Assistance Lien on the subject property. He contends in his cross complaint that the state's lien is excessive in violation of statutory law.
The defendant State of Connecticut Department of Social Services has filed a motion to dismiss the cross complaint on three separate grounds; 1) the doctrine of sovereign immunity; 2) the doctrine of administrative res judicata; and 3) said cross complaint violates Practice Book § 10-10 because it does not arise out of the transactions which is the subject of the plaintiff's appeal. In addition to the motion, the defendant, State of Connecticut Department of Social Services filed a memorandum of law dated August 28, 2006.
The defendant State of Connecticut Department of Social Services represented by the Assistant Attorney General, and the defendant pro se appeared on September 25, 2006. After reviewing the argument, statements from pro se and exhibits submitted in the record, the court concludes that the plaintiff's motion to dismiss should be granted on the following alternate grounds.
The cross complaint is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. It is the longstanding and well established law that the State of Connecticut cannot be sued without its consent. The Supreme Court, in Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 623 (1977), stated: "In Connecticut, we have long recognized the validity of the common-law principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent . . ." In Duguay v. Hopkins, 191 Conn. 222, 227 (1983), the Supreme Court further stated: "It is well established law that the state is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued by appropriate legislation waiving sovereign immunity in certain prescribed cases." The Supreme Court echoed this doctrine in Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17, 31 (1987), and at page 32 held: "In the absence of legislative authority, however, we have declined to permit any monetary award against the state or its officials."
The General Assembly has permitted, through the enactment of General Statutes § 49-31, the State to be made a party defendant in an action to foreclose a mortgage or real property lien. However, General Statutes § 49-31 specifically states "that no judgment may be rendered against the state or any officer or agent for money or costs of suit." The State of Connecticut's involvement in the instant foreclosure court action as a party defendant is not, therefore, a waiver of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and defendant Grisham's cross complaint is barred by said doctrine and should be dismissed.
The court also concludes that the cross complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court reviewed the affidavit in support of the defendant State of Connecticut Department of Social Services' motion to dismiss signed by Carol A. Persi, Resource Investigator for the Department of Social Services. The defendant, at an administrative hearing, disputed the amount of the unreimbursed public assistance claimed by the Department of Social Services and the placement of a Public Assistance Lien on his interest in the subject property. An administrative hearing was held on June 6, 2006 in which the affiant and defendant Grisham participated. A fair hearing officer issued a decision on June 22, 2006, finding the defendant Grisham liable in the amount of $51,493.81 in unreimbursed public assistance. The hearing officer further found the public assistance lien to be proper and in conformance with statutory authority. A certified copy of the decision was submitted to the defendant Grisham and the affiant on June 22, 2006.
The defendant, Grisham, has not served, nor has he filed, an appeal with the Superior Court from the fair hearing officer's decision. General Statutes § 4-183(c) provides the defendant with a forty-five day time period upon which an appeal must be filed after the mailing of the final decision. That time period expired in August 2006. This court concludes that the hearing officer's decision is a final and valid judgment entitled to the doctrine of res judicata. "[A] valid and final adjudicative determination by an administrative tribunal has the same effects under the rules of res judicata, subject to the same exceptions and qualifications, as a judgment of the court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) New England Rehabilitation Hospital of Hartford, Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, 226 Conn. 105, 129 (1993); State v. Burnaka, 61 Conn.App. 45, 54-55 (2000).
The defendant Grisham at the short calendar hearing on September 26, 2006 argued that the hearing officer misapplied the statutes in finding the lien amount owed to the state. The hearing officer's decision appears to conform to the statutory authority cited in her decision. (C.G.S. § 17b-79, Notice of Decision page 5.) That determination, however, is not properly before this court for reasons stated above.
The defendant State of Connecticut Department of Social Services further argued that the cross complaint is barred by the provision of Practice Book § 10-10. For reasons cited above, the court will not rule on the applicability of Practice Book § 10-10 to the controversy in question. The court's decision to dismiss the matter on the doctrine of sovereign immunity and res judicata are dispositive of the present motion.
ORDER
The defendant State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services' motion to dismiss (#130), the defendant Grisham's cross complaint is hereby granted.