Connex Credit Union v. Thibodeau ( 2023 )

***********************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was
released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions
and petitions for certification is the “officially released”
date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut
Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of
discrepancies between the advance release version of an
opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to
be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the
opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and
bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not
be reproduced and distributed without the express written
permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
CONNEX CREDIT UNION v. MICHELLE
M. THIBODEAU
(SC 20694)
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins and Alexander, Js.
Argued March 30—officially released June 20, 2023
Procedural History
Action to recover damages for breach of contract,
and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in
the judicial district of New Britain, where the defendant
filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the case was tried to
the court, Aurigemma, J.; judgment for the plaintiff,
from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate
Court, Alvord, Cradle and DiPentima, Js., which
affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and the defendant,
on the granting of certification, appealed to this court.
Appeal dismissed.
Garrett A. Denniston, with whom, on the brief, were
Marisa A. Bellair and Joette Katz, for the appellant
(defendant).
Robert C. Lubus, Jr., with whom was Andrew Mar-
cucci, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The defendant, Michelle M. Thibo-
deau, entered into a retail installment sales contract in
2014, which was secured by an interest in her motor
vehicle. After the defendant stopped making loan pay-
ments on the sales contract, the plaintiff, Connex Credit
Union, repossessed her vehicle. The plaintiff subse-
quently sent the defendant a notice (presale notice)
with the details of the defendant’s outstanding debt and
instructions on how the defendant could redeem the
vehicle. The defendant took no steps to redeem the
vehicle. The plaintiff sold the motor vehicle in an arm’s-
length transaction and sent the defendant a notice
informing her of the sale, that the sale price was less
than the amount owed, and that the plaintiff may seek
a deficiency judgment against her.
The plaintiff then commenced an action for breach
of contract. The defendant asserted several special
defenses, including that the plaintiff was precluded
from seeking a deficiency judgment because it failed
to inform her in its presale notice that she was entitled
to an accounting in violation of the Uniform Commer-
cial Code (UCC), General Statutes §§ 42a-9-613 (1) (D)
and 42a-9-614 (1) (A), and had not credited her with
the fair market value of the vehicle after the vehicle’s
sale, in violation of the Retail Installment Sales Financ-
ing Act (RISFA), General Statutes § 36a-785 (g). The
trial court rejected the defendant’s special defenses,
rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and awarded dam-
ages in the amount of $5432.29.
The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judg-
ment to the Appellate Court. See Connex Credit Union
v. Thibodeau, 208 Conn. App. 861, 863–64, 266 A.3d 930(2021). The Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff
had satisfied the requirements of the UCC under §§ 42a-
9-613 (1) (D) and 42a-9-614 (1) (A) by providing an
actual accounting of the defendant’s indebtedness in
the presale notice, rather than an express statement
that the defendant was entitled to an accounting. Id.,
871–72. The Appellate Court further held that the plain-
tiff had not violated RISFA because, under § 36a-785 (g),
the plaintiff was not required to credit the defendant’s
account with the fair market value, rather than the sale
proceeds, after repossession and sale of the vehicle.
Id., 877–78. The Appellate Court concluded that the
plaintiff had satisfied § 36a-785 (g) by presenting testi-
mony that rebutted the presumed fair market value of
the vehicle. Id., 878. Accordingly, the Appellate Court
affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id.
We subsequently granted the defendant’s petition for
certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appel-
late Court to determine whether (1) ‘‘the Appellate
Court properly interpret[ed] and appl[ied] the require-
ment of Connecticut’s [UCC] to notify a consumer-
debtor that he or she has a right to an accounting of
unpaid indebtedness after repossession of secured prop-
erty,’’ and (2) ‘‘[u]nder [RISFA] . . . a retail seller of a
motor vehicle, after repossession and sale of the vehi-
cle, [can] credit a retail buyer’s alleged deficiency only
with the proceeds from the vehicle’s sale when the
prima facie fair market value of the vehicle exceeded
the amount of those proceeds . . . .’’ Connex Credit
Union v. Thibodeau, 342 Conn. 903, 270 A.3d 690 (2022).
After examining the entire record on appeal and con-
sidering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties,
we have determined that the appeal should be dismissed
on the ground that certification was improvidently
granted.
The appeal is dismissed.