Industrial Mold and Tool, Inc. v. Zaleski
Connecticut is a fact pleading jurisdiction and, as explained by the 2006 Appellate Court in Rudder v. Mamanasco Lake Park Association Inc., "[t]he admission of the truth of an allegation in a pleading is a judicial admission conclusive on the pleader…." The plaintiff, Industrial Mold and Tool, Inc., commenced this action to foreclose on a judgment lien placed on property owned by the defendant, Joseph Zaleski. Paragraph four of the complaint alleged that the "judgment remains unpaid in whole and there is presently due and owing the plaintiff the sum of $31,090.55 plus interest at the statutory rate from Feb. 9, 2001 to this date." The defendant, in his answer, admitted the allegations of paragraph four. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability and its motion for foreclosure sale. The court found the debt then to be $62,487.53 and the property's fair market value to be $82,000 and set a sale date. The sale proceeded and the defendant's son, Jay Zaleski, was the highest bidder with a bid of $105,000. He failed to close on the property. A second sale date was set. The defendant filed a bankruptcy petition. After the petition was dismissed, the court set a third sale date. The defendant filed a second bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy court issued an order modifying the automatic stay to permit the plaintiff to continue its foreclosure action. A fourth foreclosure sale date was set. The trial court found the debt to be $67,121.28 and the property's fair market value to be $85,000. Prior to that sale, the defendant filed an emergency motion to open the judgment, alleging, for the first time, that the plaintiff had not been awarded postjudgment interest in the underlying action. The court denied the motion. The defendant appealed, claiming that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to open the judgment. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. It was undisputed that, in his answer, the defendant admitted that postjudgment interest was due and owing the plaintiff. The defendant's answer, admitting the allegations of paragraph four, conclusively established the fact that postjudgment interest was due and owing to the plaintiff. The defendant was bound by that admission.