Opinion
No. CV96 033 41 77
February 20, 2001 CT Page 2764
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO REARGUE AND RECONSIDER
The plaintiff, Multi-Unit Services, Inc., brings this action against the defendant, First Union National Bank, for nonpayment of property management services rendered. This case has a long procedural history, the pertinent parts of which are as follows. On August 7, 1998, the defendant filed a motion to substitute itself as the proper party defendant, which the court, Melville, J., granted on January 19, 1999. On December 11, 1998, the plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a fifth amended complaint, substituted the defendant as the proper party in the case. The fifth amended complaint, dated December 4, 1998, became the operative pleading in the case upon the passage of fifteen days without objection from the defendant. On March 3, 1999, the defendant filed, without leave of the court, an amended answer and special defenses. On March 15, 1999, the plaintiff timely filed an objection to the amendment which the court, Moran, J., sustained on December 17, 1999. On April 6, 2000, the defendant then filed a request for leave to file an amended answer and special defenses, and on May 10, 2000, the plaintiff filed an objection thereto. On October 10, 2000, the court, Melville, J., denied the request for leave to file and sustained the plaintiffs objection. On November 22, 2000, the defendant thereafter filed a motion for reargument and reconsideration of the court's previous ruling, which motion is currently before the court. The court heard argument on the motion on December 11, 2000.
According to the plaintiffs fifth amended complaint, First Union National Bank is the successor in interest to the liabilities and obligations of Great County Bank, through First Union National Bank's predecessors.
Practice Book § 10-60(a) provides in pertinent: "[A] party may amend his or her pleadings . . . at any time subsequent to [thirty days after the return date] . . . (3) By filing a request for leave to file such amendment, with the amendment appended. . . . If no objection thereto has been filed by any party within fifteen days from the date of the filing of said request, the amendment shall be deemed to have been filed by consent of the adverse party. . . ."
Practice Book § 10-61 provides in pertinent part: "When any pleading is amended the adverse party may plead thereto with the time provided by Section 10-8, or if the adverse party has already pleaded, alter the pleading, if desired, within ten days after such amendment. . . ." Practice Book § 10-8 provides in pertinent part: "[A]ny subsequent pleadings, motions and requests shall advance at least one step within each successive period of fifteen days from the preceding pleading. . . ."
Practice Book § 11-12 provides in pertinent part: "(a) A party who wishes to reargue a decision or order rendered by the court shall, within twenty days from the issuance of notice of the rendition of the decision or order, file a motion to reargue. . . ." In the present case, the court, Melville, J., issued its original decision on October 17, 2000, however, notice of the decision was not sent out by the court until November 6, 2000. Therefore, the defendant's November 22, 2000 filing of the motion to reargue is timely.
While our courts have been liberal in permitting amendments, this liberality has limitations. Amendments should be made seasonably. Factors to be considered in passing on a motion to amend are the length of delay, fairness to the opposing parties and the negligence, if any, of the party offering the amendment. The motion to amend is addressed to the trial court's discretion which may be exercised to restrain the amendment of pleadings so far as necessary to prevent unreasonable delay of the trial. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut National Bank v. Voog, 233 Conn. 352. 364, 659 A.2d 172 (1995).
In the present case, on April 6, 2000, the defendant requested leave to amend its answer and special defenses, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-60. The plaintiff, however, failed to file an objection thereto within the fifteen days provided for in that same practice book section. The plaintiff did not file its objection until May 10, 2000. Accordingly, the court, upon further consideration, hereby grants the defendant's request for leave to amend its answer and special defenses.
Notwithstanding the forgoing ruling, the parties are cautioned that these issues likely arose due to each side's inattention to their respective files. In the future any such matters are unlikely to move the court to liberally exercise its legal discretion.
MELVILLE, J.