Case Title: Wagner & Wagner Auto Sales, Inc. v. Tarro

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC17639

State: connecticut

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Date: 2007-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
******************************************************
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
In no event will any such motions be accepted before
the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
event of discrepancies between the electronic version
of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
and 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 repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
WAGNER AND WAGNER AUTO SALES, INC. v.
KATHLEEN B. TARRO ET AL.
(SC 17639)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js.
Argued November 22, 2006—officially released January 16, 2007
Glenn T. Terk, with whom, on the brief, was Kathleen
L. Matthews, for the appellants (defendants).
Carolyn A. Comerford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. In the summary process action under-
lying this certified appeal, the plaintiff, Wagner &
Wagner Auto Sales, Inc., successfully sued to recover
immediate possession from the defendants, Kathleen
B. Tarro, Richard M. Tarro and Elegant Living, LLC,
of commercial premises located in Wethersfield. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendants had failed to pay the
rent pursuant to a written sublease and rental security
agreement commencing January 1, 2004. The defen-
dants appealed, arguing, in part, that ‘‘the trial court
improperly decided that . . . the landlord, an unregis-
tered foreign corporation, was entitled to pursue its
lawsuit in this state because it was not ‘transacting
business’ within the meaning of General Statutes § 33-
920 (a) . . . .’’1 Wagner & Wagner Auto Sales, Inc. v.
Tarro, 93 Conn. App. 376, 377–78, 889 A.2d 875 (2006);
see also General Statutes § 33-921 (a).2 The Appellate
Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding,
in part, that the record was inadequate for review of
the claim concerning the plaintiff’s status as an unregis-
tered foreign corporation because the trial court made
no factual findings on that issue and the defendants
never moved for articulation. Wagner & Wagner Auto
Sales, Inc. v. Tarro, supra, 382.
The defendants appeal, following our grant of their
petition for certification, from the judgment of the
Appellate Court.3 The defendants claim that the record
establishes that the plaintiff has transacted business
within the state and, therefore, may not, pursuant to
General Statutes § 33-921 (a),4 maintain a proceeding
against the defendants without having obtained a certif-
icate of authority to do so.
After examining the entire record on appeal and con-
sidering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties,
we have determined that the appeal in this case should
be dismissed on the ground that certification was
improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.
1 General Statutes § 33-920 (a) provides: ‘‘A foreign corporation, other
than an insurance, surety or indemnity company, may not transact business
in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority from the Secretary of
the State. No foreign corporation engaged in the business of a telegraph
company, gas, electric, electric distribution or water company, or cemetery
corporation, or of any company requiring the right to take and condemn
lands or to occupy the public highways of this state, and no foreign telephone
company, shall transact in this state the business authorized by its certificate
of incorporation or by the laws of the state under which it was organized,
unless empowered so to do by some general or special act of this state,
except for the purpose of carrying out and renewing contracts existing upon
August 1, 1903. No insurance, surety or indemnity company shall transact
business in this state until it has procured a license from the Insurance
Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of section 38a-41.’’
2 General Statutes § 33-921 (a) provides: ‘‘A foreign corporation transacting
business in this state without a certificate of authority may not maintain a
proceeding in any court in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority.’’
3 We granted the defendants’ petition for certification to appeal limited
to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the
defendants could not prevail on their claim that the plaintiff was not entitled
to pursue this lawsuit?’’ Wagner & Wagner Auto Sales, Inc. v. Tarro, 277
Conn. 932, 896 A.2d 103 (2006).
4 See footnote 2 of this opinion.