RICHARD P. TANZER, JUDGE.
This action arises out of a judgment entered by the state of Rhode Island on March 29, 2004, against the defendant, Barbara Ruediger Brewster a/k/a Barbara J. Martell. The plaintiffs, OCEAN CLIFF I Owners' Association and OCEAN CLIFF II Owners' Association, filed a complaint against the defendant. The plaintiffs allege that a judgment in favor of them and against the defendant was entered in Rhode Island. The plaintiffs are asking the Connecticut Superior Court to enforce the judgment obtained in the district court of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The plaintiffs' complaint was accompanied by a fair debt collection practices act advisement of rights and a certified copy of the Rhode Island judgment signed on.
Before the court is the defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that the Connecticut court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. The defendant's motion was accompanied by a memorandum of law and an affidavit by the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition and a supporting memorandum accompanied by (1) an affidavit by the plaintiffs' Rhode Island attorney, (2) an affidavit of service, (3) a copy of the refused certified mail dated April 13, 2001, (4) a motion for alternative service, (5) a copy of the green card signed by Barbara Brewster, with a delivery date of May 19, 2001, and (6) a copy of the warranty deed. In response, the defendant filed a reply to the plaintiffs' objection to the motion to dismiss accompanied by an affidavit of Barbara J. Martell, and a copy of the green card signed by Barbara Brewster, with a delivery date of May 19, 2001.
Although the defendant's motion to dismiss alleges that the Connecticut court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, both the plaintiffs' and the defendant's subsequent motions allege that a question of fact arises as to the authenticity of the defendant's signature on the green card, and thus, whether proper service occurred. The question as to whose signature was on the green card arose after the plaintiffs attached a copy of the green card to CT Page 12576 their objection to the motion to dismiss.
"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). "[A]ffidavits are insufficient to determine the facts unless, like the summary judgment, they disclose that no genuine issue as to a material fact exists." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48, 56, 459 A.2d 503 (1983). Moreover, our Appellate Court has said that "a [trial] court cannot make a critical factual finding based on memoranda and documents submitted by the parties." Coughlin v. Waterbury, 61 Conn.App. 310, 315, 763 A.2d 1058 (2001). In fact, without an evidentiary hearing, it is improper for a court to resolve a critical fact issue solely on the basis of a complaint and affidavits containing controverted facts. Bellman v. West Hartford, 96 Conn.App. 387, 396-97, 900 A.2d 82 (2006).
Looking at the complaint, motions, and accompanying affidavits and exhibits, the court asserts that a question of fact exists as to (1) who received service at the Connecticut address listed on the green card and (2) what contacts, if any, did the defendant have with the foreign jurisdiction in Rhode Island. In accordance with the law stated in Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, supra, 190 Conn. 48, this court finds that a hearing regarding the issue of notice and personal jurisdiction is necessary, and the court will so order.
Order
The court hereby schedules a hearing on August 8, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to receive additional evidence with respect to the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Notice of the Order shall be given to all appearing parties.
CT Page 12577