Opinion
HHDCV136042412S
12-03-2015
Joyce Szekeres et al. v. Nancy T. Miller et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Susan A. Peck, J.
In a one-count complaint, the plaintiffs allege a fraudulent conveyance by the defendants Steven Miller a/k/a Steven Szekeres and Denise Miller to Nancy Miller. The plaintiffs are Joyce Szekeres, Stephanie Dridi and Chaker Dridi, the mother, sister and brother-in-law, respectively, of Steven Miller. This lawsuit is the culmination of a series of prior lawsuits between Steven and Denise Miller and Steven's family. A default was ordered as to Steven Miller (per Schuman, J.) on March 24, 2014. No motion for judgment against Steven Miller has been filed to date. A trial to the court as to Nancy Miller and Denise Miller was held on September 24, 2015 and November 9, 2015. Denise Miller appeared only through counsel. Steven Miller is self-represented and also did not appear at trial.
Nancy Miller is the mother of Denise Miller.
The docket numbers of the various lawsuits are as follows: FBTCV044022612; FBTCV044002058, HHDCV095026378 and, the present lawsuit, HHD136042412.
The plaintiffs claim that the defendants Steven and Denise Miller fraudulently transferred property at 615 Booth Hill Road, Shelton, to Nancy Miller in an effort to avoid paying an outstanding $255,000 judgment owed by them to the plaintiffs arising from the prior litigation. The plaintiffs further claim that despite this transfer, Steven and Denise remain the " equitable and real owners" of the property. The complaint alleges that the alleged fraudulent transfer took place on June 5, 2008, the date a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits that gave rise to the underlying judgment. However, a certified copy of the recorded quitclaim deed, entered into evidence by the plaintiffs as Exhibit 6, reflects that the transfer in question actually took place on June 3, 2008.
The Case Information 1 sheets in Docket Nos. FBTCV044022612 and FBTCV044002058, reflects that the verdict in those cases was accepted by the court on June 5, 2008. While the Case Information 2 sheets reflect that a motion to set aside the verdict was subsequently filed in each case and judgment did not enter until August 5, 2008, when the motions were denied by the court (Blawie, J.).
Based on all the evidence presented at the September 24, 2015 hearing, the court finds that although Nancy Miller was a witness at the 2008 trial, there is no evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claim that she was aware that a jury verdict entered against Steven and Denise on June 5, 2008. A prior lawsuit alleging the same facts as the present lawsuit was brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants in January 2009, Docket No. HHD 09-5026378, wherein the plaintiffs sought an application for prejudgment remedy. After a hearing, the application was denied. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court. See Szekeres v. Miller, 123 Conn.App. 578, 2 A.3d 953 (2010). That lawsuit, which was never returned to court, was eventually dismissed by the court (Robaina, J.), on September 9, 2014, pursuant to Practice Book § 14-3. By way of special defense in the present lawsuit, Nancy Miller and Denise Miller assert that the present action, brought on May 14, 2013, was commenced well beyond the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-552j.
Nancy and Denise Miller also raise collateral estoppel and res judicata by way of special defense. Because the court finds the plaintiff's claims to be time barred pursuant to § 52-552j, the court does not reach other issues raised by the parties. Further, the court notes that the only special defense briefed and argued by the defendants was the statute of limitations. As noted elsewhere in this memorandum, because the complaint is set forth in one count and seeks relief only pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the court finds that § 52-552j is the only statute of limitations applicable to this case. While the plaintiffs also argue that § 52-552j was somehow tolled by the continuing course of conduct of the defendants, no continuing course of conduct has been proved. Once the plaintiffs discovered the conveyance of the property, the statute of limitations began to run. See Rosato v. Mascardo, 82 Conn.App. 396, 405, 844 A.2d 893 (2004) (" the continuing course of conduct doctrine has no application after the plaintiff has discovered the harm").
Sec. 52-552j--Extinguishment of Cause of Action
A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under sections 52-552a to 52-552l, inclusive, is extinguished unless action is brought: (1) Under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 52-552e, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant; (2) under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 52-552e or subsection (a) of section 52-552f, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or (3) under subsection (b) of section 52-552f, within one year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
" The UFTA sets forth three limitation periods in § 52-552j. The first limitation of action of four years applies to transfers made with actual intent under § 52-552e(a)(1). The second statute of limitations of four years contained in § 52-552j(2) applies to transfers made with constructive fraudulent intent under § 52-552e(a)(2). Section 52-552j(3) contains the third and final limitation and provides for a one year statute of limitations for constructive fraudulent conveyances to an insider for an antecedent debt." Connecticut National Bank v. D'Onofrio, 46 Conn.App. 199, 209, 699 A.2d 237, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 926, 701 A.2d 657 (1997).
Although the plaintiff's complaint does not specify the section or subsections of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act upon which it relies, under any provision of the act, their claim is extinguished by the passage of time. Exhibit 6 is a certified quitclaim deed of the property at 615 Booth Hill Road, Shelton, from Steven and Denise Miller to Nancy Miller, recorded on June 3, 2008, at 3:38 p.m., more than four years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit against Nancy Miller, on May 30, 2013. Even assuming, the plaintiffs did not learn of the transfer until sometime subsequent to June 3, 2008, they certainly knew about it at the time they filled the application for prejudgment remedy action, Docket No. HHD 09-5026378, which was commenced on or about January 15, 2009, a date more than three years prior to the commencement of the present lawsuit against Nancy Miller on May 30, 2013. Further, the transfer of 615 Booth Hill Road, Shelton, occurred prior to the jury verdicts which gave rise to the underlying judgments, and there was no evidence presented by the plaintiff and substantial evidence presented by Nancy Miller in support of her repeated assertions that she paid more than equivalent value on an ongoing basis for the property in question in exchange for the transfer.
In their post-trial brief, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy conceded at oral argument that no such claim had been made in the complaint. As noted previously, since the plaintiffs have brought a one-count complaint under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the only applicable statute of limitations is § 52-552j.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' claim is time barred. Accordingly, judgment is hereby ordered in favor of the defendants Nancy Miller and Denise Miller.