Woodbridge Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Ferguson

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 99
Woodbridge Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Ferguson

WOODBRIDGE CROSSING CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC. v. GWENDOLYN
FERGUSON ET AL.
(AC 47075)
Bright, C. J., and Suarez and Sheldon, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the defendant
condominium unit owner in its foreclosure action for the defendant’s alleged
nonpayment of common fees. The plaintiff claimed that the court improperly
concluded that it had not met its burden of proof. Held:

The trial court’s finding that the plaintiff did not satisfy its burden of proving
that the defendant had failed to pay common charges for her unit was
not clearly erroneous because it was supported by the evidence presented
at trial.

Argued September 18—officially released November 12, 2024

Procedural History

Action to foreclose a statutory lien for unpaid com-
mon charges on a condominium unit owned by the
named defendant, and for other relief, brought to the
Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven
and tried to the court, K. Murphy, J.; judgment for the
named defendant; thereafter, the court, K. Murphy, J.,
rendered judgment dismissing the action as to the
defendant Wells Fargo Bank, and the plaintiff appealed
to this court. Affirmed.

Kristie Leff, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. In this foreclosure action concerning
the alleged nonpayment of common fees, the plaintiff,
Woodbridge Crossing Condominium Association, Inc.,
appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 99 ,0 3
Woodbridge Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Ferguson

in favor of the defendant Gwendolyn Ferguson.1 On
appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in
determining that it had not met its burden of proof. We
disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
The following procedural history and facts, as found
by the trial court, are relevant to this appeal. The plain-
tiff commenced a foreclosure action alleging that the
defendant, the owner of a unit in the plaintiff’s condo-
minium complex, had failed to pay her monthly com-
mon fees for at least six years. Following a trial, the
court delivered an oral decision in which it made the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
strongest evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim of
nonpayment was (1) plaintiff’s exhibit 6, a copy of a
portion of the plaintiff’s bank records, which did not
reflect the deposit of any checks or money orders from
the defendant during the period from June, 2013,
through May, 2018, and (2) the testimony of Michelle
Hufcut, the owner of Evergreen Property Management,
LLC (Evergreen), through which she served as the prop-
erty manager for the plaintiff during the relevant time
frame2, who stated that while she worked for the plain-
tiff, she deposited all checks and money orders received
from unit owners for the payment of common charges
into the plaintiff’s bank account. The court noted that
Hufcut had testified as to her usual procedures with
respect to depositing such payments but did not remem-
ber much, if anything, regarding the defendant’s pay-
ments of common charges for her unit. The court com-
pared plaintiff’s exhibit 6 with defendant’s exhibit J1,
1
Wells Fargo Bank was also named as a defendant. After the court ren-
dered judgment for Ferguson following a trial, which Wells Fargo Bank did
not attend, the court rendered a judgment of dismissal as to Wells Fargo
Bank, and it is not participating in this appeal. For ease of reference, we
will refer to Ferguson as the defendant.
2
Evidence was adduced at trial that Hufcut worked as the property man-
ager for the plaintiff through her company, Evergreen, from at least August,
2013, and that, in May, 2018, Hufcut’s and Evergreen’s positions as the
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 99
Woodbridge Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Ferguson

a handwritten spreadsheet prepared for the plaintiff by
Evergreen in 2019 to document the defendant’s pay-
ments of common charges for her unit while Evergreen
was serving as its property management company. The
defendant testified that exhibit J1 was sent to her by
one of the plaintiff’s subsequent property management
companies, Shoreline Property Management, in 2019,
in response to her inquiry about the alleged nonpayment
of common charges for her unit in that later time frame.
The court noted that the several payments listed in
exhibit J1 were not reflected in exhibit 6. It ultimately
concluded that it could not rely on either exhibit 6 or
exhibit J1 because the two exhibits were ‘‘inconsistent
with each other.’’
The court detailed the following evidence in favor of
the defendant’s position that she had paid her common
fees. To begin with, the defendant testified that she had
owned her unit since 1991 and that she was current on
her payments of common fees. The court found the
defendant’s testimony to be credible, noting in particu-
lar that she had supported her claim of payment with
credible documentary evidence. The documentary evi-
dence upon which the court relied included (1) exhibit
B, a May 24, 2017 letter from Evergreen noting that the
amount of common fees due from the defendant each
month for her unit was $220 and stating that the defen-
dant was a member in good standing of the condomin-
ium complex, (2) exhibit F, a communication from
another former property management company of the
plaintiff, Alan Barberino Real Estate, LLC, likewise stat-
ing that the amount of common fees due from the defen-
dant each month for her unit in the complex was $220
and that her balance as of October 8, 2019, was $285,
including $220 in common fees plus an additional $65
in other unspecified charges, and (3) exhibit E, a
property manager and property management company for the plaintiff were
terminated.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 99 ,0 5
Woodbridge Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Ferguson

November 6, 2019 statement, which was prepared by
the same former property management company, Alan
Barberino Real Estate, LLC, on the letterhead of the
plaintiff, stating that the defendant’s current balance
on that date was $285, including $220 in common fees
plus an additional $65 in late fees.3
The court concluded that the ‘‘most logical’’ explana-
tion for the inconsistencies in the parties’ evidence was
that the defendant had indeed made payments of com-
mon fees, but that ‘‘for whatever reason, and the court
doesn’t know why . . . it was not reflected in those
bank records. And again, I’ve given some possible rea-
sons for that, but I really don’t know. And ultimately,
it’s the plaintiff’s burden of proving that the defendant
did not make her payments.’’ The court rendered judg-
ment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s complaint and
ordered that the lis pendens be removed. This appeal
followed.
The plaintiff claims that the court’s finding that it did
not meet its burden of proof that the defendant did not
pay common fees during the period in question is clearly
erroneous.4 The plaintiff argues that it presented ‘‘abun-
dant, credible and incontrovertible evidence of lack
of payment,’’ including the bank statements, which it
contends is ‘‘the most accurate and precise method by
which to determine the payments made by unit own-
ers.’’ We are not persuaded.
‘‘A court’s factual findings underlying its determina-
tion that a party failed to sustain its burden of proof
will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly
3
Exhibit E further indicated that the defendant was owed a credit on her
account as of November 28, 2018. The reason for the credit is not disclosed.
4
The plaintiff also argues that the court abused its discretion in determin-
ing that it had not met its burden of proof. Our standard of review, however,
for factual findings is clearly erroneous, and we do not second-guess the
credibility determinations of the trial court. See, e.g., Schiavone v. Bank of
America, N.A., 102 Conn. App. 301, 304, 925 A.2d 438 (2007).
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 99
Woodbridge Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Ferguson

erroneous.’’ O & G Industries, Inc. v. American Home
Assurance Co., 204 Conn. App. 614, 624, 254 A.3d 955
(2021). ‘‘A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when
there is no evidence in the record to support it . . .
or when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed. . . . In making this determination, every
reasonable presumption must be given in favor of the
trial court’s ruling.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quota-
tion marks omitted.) Schiavone v. Bank of America,
N.A., 102 Conn. App. 301, 304, 925 A.2d 438 (2007).

After a careful review of the record, we conclude
that the court’s finding that the plaintiff did not satisfy
its burden of proving that the defendant failed to pay
common charges for her unit is supported by the evi-
dence. The defendant testified that she had paid her
common fees. Additionally, the defendant presented
documentary evidence supporting her payment of the
common fees in the relevant time frame, including a
summary of her payments during that period and two
later bills showing small current balances due with
other minor charges but no arrearages. Although the
plaintiff presented evidence of the defendant’s nonpay-
ment of common fees that included, most notably, bank
records from the relevant time frame, the court did
not credit that evidence. Rather, the court credited the
defendant’s testimony and the documentary evidence
in exhibits B, E, and F that supported her testimony
that she had paid the common fees for her unit. ‘‘[I]t
is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to weigh
the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of
witnesses and determine whether to accept some, all
or none of a witness’ testimony.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) Rockhill v. Danbury Hospital, 176
Conn. App. 39, 44, 168 A.3d 630 (2017). We conclude
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5

0 Conn. App. 99 ,0 7
Woodbridge Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Ferguson

that the court’s finding that the plaintiff did not sustain
its burden of proof was not clearly erroneous and there-
fore must be upheld.
The judgment is affirmed.