2008 Ct. Sup. 13900
No. CV00-0435965Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
August 26, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE RECEIVER’S MOTION TO ACCEPT FINAL ACCOUNTING AND CROSS MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT
JONATHAN E. SILBERT, Judge.
The plaintiff brought this action in February of 2000, seeking the appointment of a receiver and the dissolution of the defendant Zampco Construction, LLC, a limited liability company of which the named defendant and the plaintiff were members. On March 31, 2000, the court, DeMayo, J.T.R., appointed Attorney Andrew White as receiver. White’s duties were to commence the windup of the affairs and the dissolution of Zampco in accordance with terms set forth in a stipulation by the parties. In July of 2000, White found it necessary to file a motion to compel directed at all parties in an effort to get them to provide the materials necessary for him to discharge his duties.
The file thereafter reveals no activity than a dormancy dismissal and a motion to open the judgment of dismissal. The matter was restored to the docket by Judge DeMayo in June of 2004, with an order that the receiver “attempt to resolve accounting issues on Yale contracts and close out receivership.”
On November 20, 2007, the receiver filed his motion to accept final accounting. The defendants filed an objection in December of 2007. In January of 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt, arguing that because the defendants had not provided the receiver with “all documentation regarding the operation of a Company, the accounts receivables, payroll accounts, and the account payable, including but not limited to all contracts, invoices and bills,” the plaintiff was “unable to intelligently respond to the temporary receiver’s motion for a final accounting.” The defendants objected to that motion and also sought to have the plaintiff held in contempt for his alleged failure to provide the receiver with full documentation. When all of the above referenced motions and objections came before the undersigned for argument on August 25, 2008, the defendants withdrew their objection to the receiver’s report and urged that it be accepted. The plaintiff objected orally to the acceptance of the report, arguing the same points raised in his CT Page 13901 motion for contempt.
At oral argument, White indicated that he was satisfied that he had received sufficient information upon which to submit his final accounting. He acknowledged, however, that all parties had dragged their feet throughout the process with regard to presenting requested documentation, turning his receivership into an eight-year process, but he opined that he had done his best to comply with Judge DeMayo’s order, namely that he attempted “to resolve accounting issues on Yale contracts and close out receivership.” He had no confidence that protracting the process would produce any additional relevant information, nor could either party state that they were aware of any particular information, as yet undisclosed, that might alter the accounting.
It is worth noting that it has taken more than eight years for the receiver to finally get to this point in the process of winding up a relatively small company that now, according to his accounting, has approximately $85,000 in cash on hand for distribution. It is also worthy of some consideration that the plaintiff, while claiming that he could not “intelligently respond” to the receiver’s motion, in fact could well have objected to it many months ago based on his contention that the documentation was not complete. Instead, he chose only to move for contempt, under circumstances in which the record makes clear that both parties were a good deal less than cooperative with the receiver’s lengthy efforts to wind up the business. Finally, neither party has been able to make any representation that the additional documentation, which has not been shown actually to exist, would be likely to have any effect on the final accounting.
For all of the above reasons, the motion to accept the receiver’s final accounting is granted. Both motions for contempt are denied.
CT Page 13902