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