TURTLE HUGHES v. CARP BLD. STR.

Full title: TURTLE HUGHES, INC. v. CARP BUILDING STRUCTURES, INC. ET AL

Court: Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford at Milford

Date published: Oct 25, 2005

2005 Ct. Sup. 13351 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

Opinion

No. CV 05 4004378 S

October 25, 2005

RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

BARRY K. STEVENS, JUDGE.

This is a collection action instituted by the plaintiff, Turtle Hughes, Inc. to collect a debt allegedly owed by the defendant Carp Building Structures, Inc. and guaranteed by the defendant William Carpenter. Pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion to reargue/reconsider the court's decision denying, without prejudice, its motion for summary judgment as to liability. The motion to reargue is granted, and upon further consideration, the motion for summary judgment is again denied without prejudice.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff has submitted what purports to be an "Application for Business Credit," dated May 6, 2003. The plaintiff has not filed any supporting affidavit that either authenticates this document or asserts any facts, instead relying solely on the pro se answer filed by the defendant, William Carpenter. This answer had not been filed when the court initially ruled on the motion, but is in the file now and has been reviewed by the court.

In the answer, Carpenter denies paragraphs one and four of the complaint and asserts that he has insufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny paragraph three. Thus, Carpenter has not admitted liability. In his pro se answer, Carpenter does say "I agree we owe some invoices, however not all they say. We have documentation showing the invoices we agree are owed. We don't agree with the others." On this record, it is unclear whether this admission is referring to invoices relating to the May 6, 2003 application or other invoices altogether, especially in light of the defendant's denial of paragraphs one and four of the complaint. Moreover, the answer does not admit the allegation that Carpenter personally guaranteed the debt as claimed in the second count.¹

1 The court also notes that William Carpenter cannot file a pro se appearance and answer on behalf of the corporate defendant, Carp Building Structures, Inc.

Even when a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the moving party CT Page 13351-ls still bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Harvey v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., 52 Conn.App. 1, 8-9 (1999). The plaintiff has failed to meet this burden on this record. A motion for summary judgment should ordinarily be supported by an affidavit setting forth "facts as would be admissible in evidence," with supporting documents that have been "sworn or certified." P.B. § 17-46. The plaintiff chose to rely on the defendant's answer and an unsworn document rather than filing a supporting affidavit, and on this record, this submission is insufficient to acquire summary judgment.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the motion to reargue is granted, and upon further consideration, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice. The plaintiff has leave to refile the motion with supporting documentation.

So ordered.