WAGEE AQLEH v. CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE II, L.P.;
CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE II, L.P. v. MARIE C. MILAZZO et al.,
Judicial District of New Haven at Meriden
Parties; Prejudgment Remedies; Attachment; Whether Trial Court Improperly Failed to Cite in a Necessary Party; Whether Court Properly Granted Application to Discharge a Prejudgment Attachment. Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. (Cadlerock), commenced an action against Wagee Aqleh, among others, seeking to foreclose on a mortgage securing a commercial note. It subsequently attached property owned by Aqleh, who was a guarantor of the note. Aqleh moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court granted his motion, concluding that Cadlerock failed to serve him timely because its attempted abode service was ineffective given that it had not been made at his usual place of abode. The court further determined that the statute of limitations was not tolled due to Aqleh's absence from the state because he was amenable to suit under the long arm statute. After the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, Cadlerock moved to cite Aqleh back into its foreclosure action under Connecticut's accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592. Aqleh objected to the motion, asserting that he had already obtained a judgment in his favor and that Cadlerock's attempt to pursue its claim against him was barred by res judicata. He further asserted that Cadlerock's reliance on the accidental failure of suit statute was misplaced because the statute requires that a new action be filed when an original action, which was filed within the time limited by law, fails to be tried on the merits. The trial court sustained Aqleh's objection. In a separate action that Aqleh brought to discharge the attachment, the trial court found in Aqleh's favor. The court rejected Cadlerock's claim that it was not required to release the attachment because it had not received satisfaction of its claim against Aqleh. It also denied Cadlerock's request for a temporary injunction prohibiting Aqleh from conveying or further encumbering the property. Cadlerock now appeals from the trial court's rulings denying its motion to cite Aqleh back into its action, granting Aqleh's application to discharge the attachment and denying its request for a temporary injunction. It argues that to the extent that the challenged rulings are interlocutory, they are immediately appealable under State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983).