Kloth-Zanard v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

Full title: Joan T. KLOTH–ZANARD v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Date published: May 19, 2015

157 Conn. App. 366 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)

115 A.3d 531

Opinion

No. 36729.

2015-05-19

Joan T. KLOTH–ZANARD v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

Joan T. Kloth-Zanard , self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). Gary G. Williams , assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was George Jepsen , attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Prescott, J.
Joan T. Kloth–Zanard, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). Gary G. Williams, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was George Jepsen, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
GRUENDEL, ALVORD and MULLINS, Js.

PER CURIAM.

In 2012, the defendant, the Department of Social Services, notified the plaintiff, Joan T. Kloth–Zanard, that it recorded a lien on her real property in Southbury to secure the repayment of reimbursable public assistance. The plaintiff thereafter contested that action, and an administrative hearing followed. In its notice of decision, the defendant's hearing officer denied the appeal, concluding in relevant part that the plaintiff was “liable to repay the State of Connecticut for public assistance issued to her” and that the state “may hold a lien on [the plaintiff's] real property to secure [its] claim for all amounts previously paid....” From that decision, the plaintiff then appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 4–183, which affirmed that decision. The plaintiff now challenges the propriety of that determination.

Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment should be affirmed. On the facts of this case, the issues properly were resolved in the court's well reasoned memorandum of decision. See Zanard–Kloth v. Dept. of Social Services, 53 Conn.Supp. 363, 116 A.3d 412 (2014). We therefore adopt it as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law, as it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Green v. DeFrank, 132 Conn.App. 331, 332, 33 A.3d 754 (2011).

The judgment is affirmed.