Cummings Properties, LLC v. Center IMT, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Cummings Properties, LLC v. Center IMT, Inc.

38 A.3d 208, 134 Conn. App. 139, 2012 WL 654953, 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 112

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 6, 2012

DocketAC 33149

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.3d 208 (Cummings Properties, LLC v. Center IMT, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cummings Properties, LLC v. Center IMT, Inc., 38 A.3d 208, 134 Conn. App. 139, 2012 WL 654953, 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 112 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of an action to enforce a foreign judgment rendered against the defendant, Center IMT, Inc., in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Cummings Properties, LLC, by (1) disregarding the defendant’s rights to due process in the Massachusetts action,¹ (2) concluding that the misstatements in the plaintiffs complaint were not significant² and (3) disregarding certain purported procedural [140]*140defects in the present action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Practice Book § 17-49.

On August 12, 2009, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the principal amount of $183,511.21.³ The defendant appeared in that case. On February 23, 2010, the plaintiff commenced an action in Connecticut to enforce the Massachusetts judgment and secured a stipulated prejudgment order. The defendant filed an appearance but did not answer the plaintiffs complaint. On October 29, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-607, to which it attached the Massachusetts judgment. The court summarily granted the motion for summary judgment on January 24, 2011, stating: “The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby: ORDER: GRANTED [General Statutes §] 52-604; Misstatements as to parties in complaint not significant.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of an action to enforce a foreign judgment rendered against the defendant, Center IMT, Inc., in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Cummings Properties, LLC, by (1) disregarding the defendant’s rights to due process in the Massachusetts action,¹ (2) concluding that the misstatements in the plaintiffs complaint were not significant² and (3) disregarding certain purported procedural [140]*140defects in the present action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Practice Book § 17-49.

On August 12, 2009, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the principal amount of $183,511.21.³ The defendant appeared in that case. On February 23, 2010, the plaintiff commenced an action in Connecticut to enforce the Massachusetts judgment and secured a stipulated prejudgment order. The defendant filed an appearance but did not answer the plaintiffs complaint. On October 29, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-607, to which it attached the Massachusetts judgment. The court summarily granted the motion for summary judgment on January 24, 2011, stating: “The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby: ORDER: GRANTED [General Statutes §] 52-604; Misstatements as to parties in complaint not significant.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.3d 208, 134 Conn. App. 139, 2012 WL 654953, 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-properties-llc-v-center-imt-inc-connappct-2012.