Skip to main content
· 3/15/2022

Scient Federal Credit Union v. Rabon

Citations

  • 211 Conn. App. 264

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover damages resulting from the defendant's alleged breach of a credit card agreement. In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant applied for and received a credit card by virtue of a credit card agreement, and the defendant defaulted under the terms of that agreement by failing to make the payments agreed to therein. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him due to insufficient service of process, which the court denied without issuing a memoran- dum of decision. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability and damages. The plaintiff appended to the motion an affidavit from H, the director of collections for the plaintiff. H's affidavit stated that as a result of the defendant's credit card application submitted to the plaintiff, the defendant received two credit cards. Attached as exhibits to the affidavit were the defendant's credit card application, credit card disclosure statements, transaction listings for the two accounts, and the credit card agreement that allegedly estab- lished the defendant's liability to the plaintiff and the amount of the debt that the defendant owed, $46,812.08. The defendant opposed the motion for summary judgment, arguing that it differed from the com- plaint because the complaint referenced only one credit card and under- lying agreement, while the motion for summary judgment referenced multiple credit cards with separate debts, along with documents that indicated the existence of separate agreements. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judg- ment, that court having properly concluded that the plaintiff met its burden to establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact as to the factual basis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that the general order to “adequately supervise” children provided insufficient notice that particular omissions constituted inadequate supervision
  • general order to “adequately supervise” children provided insufficient notice that particular omissions constituted inadequate supervision
  • order to “adequately supervise” children provided insufficient notice that particular omissions constituted inadequate supervision
  • “adequate!]” supervision not clear and unequivocal notice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bright; Elgo; Suarez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.