FIA CARD SERVICES N.A.
v.
GUPTA

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at RockvilleSep 3, 2010
2010 Ct. Sup. 17304 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)

No. TTD CV 09 5004646 S

September 3, 2010


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION


SFERRAZZA, J.

On September 1, 2010, the court conducted a hearing in damages in this credit card debt collection case. The defendant was defaulted for failure to plead on August 31, 2009, and the plaintiff claimed the matter to the hearing in damages list on August 5, 2010.

The defendant makes no claim that the plaintiff's calculation of the charges and interest is mathematically inaccurate. Rather, he contends that no valid charge ought to have been recognized in the first instance. Specifically, he argued that a vendor, who was paid using the credit card in question, failed to deliver the services for which it was paid.

The defendant disputed the charge with the plaintiff. The plaintiff rejected the defendant's argument and determined that the questioned charge was legitimate.

Practice Book § 17-34(a) prohibits a defendant from offering "evidence to contradict any allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, except such as relate to the amount of damages, . . . nor shall the defendant be permitted to prove any matter of defense, unless written notice has been given to the plaintiff of the intention to deny such right or to prove such matter of defense." The defendant never provided any notice of intent.

The defendant's contention, that the credit card transaction in question ought to have been invalidated by the plaintiff because of vendor delinquencies, is a matter of defense rather than a controversy over the proper assessment of damages for failure to pay the charges in a timely manner. The defendant wishes to deny any liability for the charge whatsoever. He does not assail the computation of the charge, interest and fees imposed if he is liable to for the charge. Consequently, the court must ignore the defense of wrongful validation of the charge.

Judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $8,074.94 plus costs.