Docket No.
: UWY-CV16-6038021-S : State of Connecticut Super Court
Transferred from WWM-CV16-6010391 : Complex Litigation Docket
: At Waterbury
Fiduciary of the Estate of Eileen Curran :
v. :
Appeal from Probate : January 11, 2018
PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Practice Book 10-31(b)
The plaintiff, Keith M. Curran pursuant to the authority of Practice Book Sec. §10-
31(b) 1 respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss;
where the defendant should be deposed and compelled to give testimony on the
contested facts claimed in her Objection to the Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss at (#274 and
400 NW Parr Drive, Unit A Pullman, Wa. 99163
#275). Specifically; the defendant’s claims that the fees which are the subject matter of
Ph. (860) 838-1865 Fx. (858) 300-5465
THIS probate appeal are “secured” and tied to mortgage(s).
kcurran@journeyeast.org
Keith M. Curran
Evidentiary hearings are necessary because the defendant’s stated basis for
objection and her exhibits involve the merits of stated aggreivement in this probate appeal.
(Entry No. #104.00) The defendant’s objection is a fraud upon the court, a wanton and
willful attempt by the defendant to deceive this court into believing that the final accounting
fees approved in 2016 (and the subject matter of this appeal) are tied to mortgages
obtained in 2014, when in fact, they are not. The plaintiff further requests that the
jurisdictional issues be stayed until the Defendant has complied with the Defendants
discovery requests. A memorandum of law in support of this motion is attached.
ORAL ARGUMENTS REQUESTED
TESTIMONY & SUBPEONAS REQUIRED
1
Practice Book Sec. § 10-31(b) -- If an evidentiary hearing is required, any party shall file a request for such hearing
with the court.
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY
HEARING AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY
LEGAL BASIS FOR GRANTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING:
Practice Book § 10-31(b) authorizes this court to grant the plaintiffs request for an
evidentiary hearing.
An evidentiary hearing must take place because; (1) the factual statements that
form the basis of defendant’s objection are untrue and a fraud upon the court which if
taken as true threaten to manifest an unconscionable result; (2) the basis of her objection
touches upon the merits of the stated aggreivement of the complaint at Entry No. #104.00
400 NW Parr Drive, Unit A Pullman, Wa. 99163
“Where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical
Ph. (860) 838-1865 Fx. (858) 300-5465
factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an
kcurran@journeyeast.org
Keith M. Curran
evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts...” Gordon v.H.N.S. Management Co.,
272 Conn. 81, 92, 861 A.2d 1160 (2004) “Likewise, if the question of jurisdiction is
intertwined with the merits of the case, a court cannot resolve the jurisdictional question
without a hearing to evaluate those merits..” Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724, 728,
553 A.2d 175 “An evidentiary hearing is necessary because a court cannot make a
critical factual [jurisdictional] finding based on memoranda and documents submitted by
the parties.” (Citations omitted; footnotes omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Coughlin v.Waterbury, 61 Conn. App. 310, 315, 763 A.2d 1058 (2001). See also Giannoni
v. Commissioner of Transportation, Supreme Court of Connecticut.·141 A.3d 784 (Conn.
2016) See also Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650, 974 A.2d 669 (2009) Id., at 652–
54, 974 A.2d 669.
Page 2 of 4
"when issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court's jurisdiction . . .
due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held, in which an opportunity is provided
to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse witnesses" [internal quotation marks
omitted]); Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Harrison, 264 Conn. 829, 833, 826 A.2d 1102
(2003)
Adjudication of the Motion to Dismiss should be stayed until the Defendant has
complied with the Plaintiffs Discovery Requests:
Plaintiff requests the trial court use its discretion to stay adjudication of the
jurisdictional matter until the defendant has produced and complied with the plaintiffs
motion for compliance (#215), production and discovery requests. In Giannoni v.
400 NW Parr Drive, Unit A Pullman, Wa. 99163
Commissioner of Transportation, Supreme Court of Connecticut.·141 A.3d 784 (Conn.
Ph. (860) 838-1865 Fx. (858) 300-5465
kcurran@journeyeast.org
2016) The trial court “may in its discretion choose to postpone resolution of the
Keith M. Curran
jurisdictional question until the parties complete further discovery or, if necessary, a full
trial on the merits has occurred.” Id., at 653 n. 16, 974 A.2d 669.v Conboy v. State, 292
Conn. 642, 650, 974 A.2d 669 (2009)
Plaintiffs motion for compliance at Entry No. #215 seeks to compel discovery from
the defendant who has refused to produce the requested documents. Defendant has
failed to file any objection with the court on the request for discovery as required by PB
13-10(e) & PB 13-10(f). The defendant also has not filed any objection to the plaintiff’s
motion for compliance brought pursuant to PB §13-14. The discovery seeks in part
information relating to a fraudulently obtained mortgage, (See Entry No. #217 Exhibit A,
Item No. 3, 6 and 8)
Page 3 of 4
WHEREFORE; For all of the aforementioned reasons the plaintiffs request for an
evidentiary hearing should be granted and the motion to dismiss stayed pending
production of discovery from the defendant within five days from this courts order.
BY PLAINTIFF
/s/ Keith M. Curran .
$195.00 / hr @ 10 Hours Keith M. Curran 2018-01-11
400 NW Parr Drive, Unit A Pullman, Wa. 99163
400 NW Parr Dr., Unit A
Ph. (860) 838-1865 Fx. (858) 300-5465
$1,950.00 Accrual This Motion Pullman, Wa. 99163
Ph. (860) 838-1865 Fx. (858) 300-5465
kcurran@journeyeast.org
kcurran@journeyeast.org
Keith M. Curran
Page 4 of 4
