transaction test in Connecticut

2002The plaintiff moves to strike the counterclaim on the ground that it does not arise out of the same transaction as the subject matter of the complaint, as required by Practice Book § 10-10 . 9 The same transaction rule is "designed to permit the joinder of closely related claims where such joinder is in the best interests of judicial economy." Wallingford v. Glen Valley Associates, Inc., 190 Conn. 158 , 161 , 459 A.2d 525 (1983).

1999Practice Book § 10-10 provides that “[i]n any action for legal or equitable relief, any defendant may file counterclaims against any plaintiff and cross claims against any codefendant provided that each such counterclaim and cross claim arises out of the transaction or one of the transactions which is the subject of the plaintiffs complaint . . . .” (Emphasis added.) “The transaction test [of § 10-10] is one of practicality, and the trial court’s determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wal

1999Relevant CT Page 9180 considerations in determining whether the transaction test has been met include whether the same issues of fact and law are presented by the complaint and the [counterclaim] and whether separate trials on each of the respective claims would involve a substantial duplication of effort by the parties and the courts." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Conlan , 171 Conn. 161 , 166-67 , 368 A.2d 3 (1976).

1999Relevant CT Page 9180 considerations in determining whether the transaction test has been met include whether the same issues of fact and law are presented by the complaint and the [counterclaim] and whether separate trials on each of the respective claims would involve a substantial duplication of effort by the parties and the courts." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Conlan , 171 Conn. 161 , 166-67 , 368 A.2d 3 (1976).

2017The transaction test is one of practicality, and the trial court's determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) JP Morgan Chase Bank, Trustee v. Rodrigues , supra, at 131-32 , 952 A.2d 56 .

2009The transaction test is one of practicality, and the trial court’s determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) JP Morgan Chase Bank, Trustee v. Rodrigues, 109 Conn. App. 125, 131-32 , 952 A.2d 56 (2008). *547 A The subject of the plaintiffs complaint is the status of the right-of-way and the plaintiffs right to make use of and to repair that right-of-way without interference from the defendant.

2002"The transaction test [of § 10-10 ] is one of practicality, and the trial court's determination as to whether the test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Southbridge Associates, LLC v. Garofalo , 53 Conn. App. 11 , 21 , 728 A.2d 1114 , cert. denied, 249 Conn. 919 , 733 A.2d 229 (1999).

2002"The transaction test [of § 10-10 ] is one of practicality, and the trial court's determination as to whether the test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Southbridge Associates, LLC v. Garofalo , 53 Conn. App. 11 , 21 , 728 A.2d 1114 , cert. denied, 249 Conn. 919 , 733 A.2d 229 (1999).

2025Although we recognize and adhere to the well- founded policy to accord leeway to self-represented parties in the appeal process, our deference is not unlimited; nor is a litigant on appeal relieved of the obligation to sufficiently articulate a claim so that it is recognizable to a reviewing court.’ . . .); Tonghini v. Tonghini, 152 Conn. App. 231 , 239–40, 98 A.3d 93 (2014) (‘declin[ing] to enter into the statutory thicket of the family support magistrate laws without any meaningful assistance from the parties’ and observing that ‘the fact that the defendant is self-represented cannot excuse

2025Although we recognize and adhere to the well- founded policy to accord leeway to self-represented parties in the appeal process, our deference is not unlimited; nor is a litigant on appeal relieved of the obligation to sufficiently articulate a claim so that it is recognizable to a reviewing court.’ . . .); Tonghini v. Tonghini, 152 Conn. App. 231 , 239–40, 98 A.3d 93 (2014) (‘declin[ing] to enter into the statutory thicket of the family support magistrate laws without any meaningful assistance from the parties’ and observing that ‘the fact that the defendant is self-represented cannot excuse

2021The trans- action test is one of practicality, and the trial court’s determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discre- tion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) South Wind- sor Cemetery Assn., Inc. v. Lindquist, 114 Conn. App. 540, 546 , 970 A.2d 760 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 932 , 981 A.2d 1076 (2009). ‘‘Our Supreme Court has instructed that the [r]elevant considerations in determining whether the transaction test has been met include whether the same issues of fact and law are presented by the complaint and the [counter]claim and wheth

2021The trans- action test is one of practicality, and the trial court’s determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discre- tion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) South Wind- sor Cemetery Assn., Inc. v. Lindquist, 114 Conn. App. 540, 546 , 970 A.2d 760 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 932 , 981 A.2d 1076 (2009). ‘‘Our Supreme Court has instructed that the [r]elevant considerations in determining whether the transaction test has been met include whether the same issues of fact and law are presented by the complaint and the [counter]claim and wheth

2021In other words, proper application of the transaction test requires a trial court to consider ‘‘whether a duplication of judicial effort and resources would result if the subject of the complaint and counterclaim were tried in separate actions.’’ Ceci Bros., Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corp., 81 Conn. App. 419 , 423 n.3, 840 A.2d 578 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 922 , 846 A.2d 881 (2004).

2014For example, in Ceci Bros., Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corp., 81 Conn. App. 419 , 423 n.3, 840 A.2d 578 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 922 , 846 A.2d 881 (2004), this court concluded, in the particu- lar facts: ‘‘Because the two agreements, one alleged in the plaintiff’s amended complaint and the other alleged in the defendant’s counterclaim, were intertwined, the counterclaim in this case was proper.’’ As this court has previously observed: ‘‘Our Supreme Court has instructed that the [r]elevant considerations in determining whether the transaction test has been met include whether the same issues of

2021In other words, proper application of the transaction test requires a trial court to consider ‘‘whether a duplication of judicial effort and resources would result if the subject of the complaint and counterclaim were tried in separate actions.’’ Ceci Bros., Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corp., 81 Conn. App. 419 , 423 n.3, 840 A.2d 578 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 922 , 846 A.2d 881 (2004).

2014For example, in Ceci Bros., Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corp., 81 Conn. App. 419 , 423 n.3, 840 A.2d 578 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 922 , 846 A.2d 881 (2004), this court concluded, in the particu- lar facts: ‘‘Because the two agreements, one alleged in the plaintiff’s amended complaint and the other alleged in the defendant’s counterclaim, were intertwined, the counterclaim in this case was proper.’’ As this court has previously observed: ‘‘Our Supreme Court has instructed that the [r]elevant considerations in determining whether the transaction test has been met include whether the same issues of

2021In other words, proper application of the transaction test requires a trial court to consider ‘‘whether a duplication of judicial effort and resources would result if the subject of the complaint and counterclaim were tried in separate actions.’’ Ceci Bros., Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corp., 81 Conn. App. 419 , 423 n.3, 840 A.2d 578 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 922 , 846 A.2d 881 (2004).

2021In other words, proper application of the transaction test requires a trial court to consider ‘‘whether a duplication of judicial effort and resources would result if the subject of the complaint and counterclaim were tried in separate actions.’’ Ceci Bros., Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corp., 81 Conn. App. 419 , 423 n.3, 840 A.2d 578 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 922 , 846 A.2d 881 (2004).

2021The trans- action test is one of practicality, and the trial court’s determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discre- tion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) South Wind- sor Cemetery Assn., Inc. v. Lindquist, 114 Conn. App. 540, 546 , 970 A.2d 760 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 932 , 981 A.2d 1076 (2009). ‘‘Our Supreme Court has instructed that the [r]elevant considerations in determining whether the transaction test has been met include whether the same issues of fact and law are presented by the complaint and the [counter]claim and wheth

2014Our view is buttressed by this court’s opinion in South Windsor Cemetery Assn., Inc. v. Lindquist, 114 Conn. App. 540 , 970 A.2d 760 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 932 , 981 A.2d 1076 (2009), in which it was confronted with a counterclaim in a legal posture it found similar to the counterclaims in Rodrigues.

2021The trans- action test is one of practicality, and the trial court’s determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discre- tion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) South Wind- sor Cemetery Assn., Inc. v. Lindquist, 114 Conn. App. 540, 546 , 970 A.2d 760 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 932 , 981 A.2d 1076 (2009). ‘‘Our Supreme Court has instructed that the [r]elevant considerations in determining whether the transaction test has been met include whether the same issues of fact and law are presented by the complaint and the [counter]claim and wheth

2014Our view is buttressed by this court’s opinion in South Windsor Cemetery Assn., Inc. v. Lindquist, 114 Conn. App. 540 , 970 A.2d 760 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 932 , 981 A.2d 1076 (2009), in which it was confronted with a counterclaim in a legal posture it found similar to the counterclaims in Rodrigues.

2018"The transaction test is one of practicality, and the trial court's determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morgera v. Chiappardi , 74 Conn. App. 442 , 449, 813 A.2d 89 (2003).

2018"The transaction test is one of practicality, and the trial court's determination as to whether that test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morgera v. Chiappardi , 74 Conn. App. 442 , 449, 813 A.2d 89 (2003).

2002"The transaction test [of § 10-10 ] is one of practicality, and the trial court's determination as to whether the test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Southbridge Associates, LLC v. Garofalo , 53 Conn. App. 11 , 21 , 728 A.2d 1114 , cert. denied, 249 Conn. 919 , 733 A.2d 229 (1999).

2000Southbridge Associates v. Garofalo , 53 Conn. App. 11 , 21 , 728 A.2d 1114 , cert. denied, 249 Conn. 919 , 733 A.2d 229 (1999).

2002"The transaction test [of § 10-10 ] is one of practicality, and the trial court's determination as to whether the test has been met ought not be disturbed except for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Southbridge Associates, LLC v. Garofalo , 53 Conn. App. 11 , 21 , 728 A.2d 1114 , cert. denied, 249 Conn. 919 , 733 A.2d 229 (1999).

2000Southbridge Associates v. Garofalo , 53 Conn. App. 11 , 21 , 728 A.2d 1114 , cert. denied, 249 Conn. 919 , 733 A.2d 229 (1999).

2001"The test is whether judicial economy, avoidance of multiplicity of litigation, and avoidance of piecemeal disposition of what is essentially one action, are thwarted rather than served by the filing of a [counter] claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Source One v. Dziurzynski , Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 145337 (May 22, 1996, Hickey, J. ) ( 17 Conn.L.Rptr. 29 , 30.) It considers whether "the subject matter of the counterclaim is so connected with the matter in controversy under the original complaint that its consideration is necessary

2001"The test is whether judicial economy, avoidance of multiplicity of litigation, and avoidance of piecemeal disposition of what is essentially one action, are thwarted rather than served by the filing of a [counter] claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Source One v. Dziurzynski , Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 145337 (May 22, 1996, Hickey, J. ) ( 17 Conn.L.Rptr. 29 , 30.) It considers whether "the subject matter of the counterclaim is so connected with the matter in controversy under the original complaint that its consideration is necessary

1996Jamestowne then applies the transaction test approved in Orselet v. DeMatteo , 206 Conn. 542 , 545-46 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988) to determine whether the present action is barred by res judicata because it relates to the plaintiff's original claims.

1996Jamestowne then applies the transaction test approved in Orselet v. DeMatteo , 206 Conn. 542 , 545-46 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988) to determine whether the present action is barred by res judicata because it relates to the plaintiff's original claims.

2018As we explain in part VI of this opinion, the defendant's argument cannot be reconciled with this court's decision in State v. Gibbs , supra, 254 Conn. at 602 -604 , 758 A.2d 327 , which interpreted § 53a-54b (8) to encompass a scenario in which a defendant killed a second victim to escape detection.

2018As we explain in part VI of this opinion, the defendant's argument cannot be reconciled with this court's decision in State v. Gibbs , supra, 254 Conn. at 602 -604 , 758 A.2d 327 , which interpreted § 53a-54b (8) to encompass a scenario in which a defendant killed a second victim to escape detection.

2018U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers , supra, 177 Conn. App. at 632 , 172 A.3d 837 .

2018U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers , supra, 177 Conn. App. at 632 , 172 A.3d 837 .

2017II We next address Piper’s claim that the trial court improperly struck the defendants’ counterclaims by requiring the counterclaims to have a sufficient nexus to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note or mortgage. ‘‘A plaintiff can [move to strike] a . . . counter- claim.’’ Nowak v. Nowak, 175 Conn. 112, 116 , 394 A.2d 716 (1978). ‘‘A counterclaim has been defined as a cause of action existing in favor of a defendant against a plaintiff [that] a defendant pleads to diminish, defeat or otherwise affect a plaintiff’s claim and also allows a recovery by the defendant. . . .

2017II We next address Piper’s claim that the trial court improperly struck the defendants’ counterclaims by requiring the counterclaims to have a sufficient nexus to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note or mortgage. ‘‘A plaintiff can [move to strike] a . . . counter- claim.’’ Nowak v. Nowak, 175 Conn. 112, 116 , 394 A.2d 716 (1978). ‘‘A counterclaim has been defined as a cause of action existing in favor of a defendant against a plaintiff [that] a defendant pleads to diminish, defeat or otherwise affect a plaintiff’s claim and also allows a recovery by the defendant. . . .

2008We will, therefore, review the judgment on the counterclaim. 3 Although Monetary Funding Group, Inc. v. Pluchino, supra 87 Conn. App. 401 , and Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, supra, 223 Conn. 80 , do not address the issue of whether the CUTPA counterclaim involved meets the transaction test set forth in Practice Book § 10-10, they, nevertheless give us guidance in what constitutes a valid CUTPA counterclaim in a foreclosure action.

2008We will, therefore, review the judgment on the counterclaim. 3 Although Monetary Funding Group, Inc. v. Pluchino, supra 87 Conn. App. 401 , and Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, supra, 223 Conn. 80 , do not address the issue of whether the CUTPA counterclaim involved meets the transaction test set forth in Practice Book § 10-10, they, nevertheless give us guidance in what constitutes a valid CUTPA counterclaim in a foreclosure action.

2007We note that a minority of state courts, including the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has had the opportunity to examine the doctrine of equitable recoupment on several occasions, have adopted a broader definition of “ ‘same transaction,’ ” so that the term encompasses “any transaction in the tax period involved in either a claim by the taxpayer for refund or by the state for additional assessment . . . .” 19 American Motors Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, supra, 64 Wis. 2d 353 ; see also Estate of Kasishke v. Tax Commission, supra, 541 P.2d 853 (concluding, on basis of reasoning of American Motors

2007We note that a minority of state courts, including the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has had the opportunity to examine the doctrine of equitable recoupment on several occasions, have adopted a broader definition of “ ‘same transaction,’ ” so that the term encompasses “any transaction in the tax period involved in either a claim by the taxpayer for refund or by the state for additional assessment . . . .” 19 American Motors Corp. v. Dept. of Revenue, supra, 64 Wis. 2d 353 ; see also Estate of Kasishke v. Tax Commission, supra, 541 P.2d 853 (concluding, on basis of reasoning of American Motors