Exhibrt C2 (bts)
`
`NO. FST-CV22-6058280-S
`
`: SUPERIOR COURT
`
`KATHERINE M. JAROZEWSKI
`
`; JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK
`
`VS,
`
`: AT STAMFORD
`
`NATASHA BRUTON
`
`>: SEPTEMBER23, 2022
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORTOF
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`
`|. Procedural History
`
`This civil action was commenced by summonsand complaint dated September
`
`8, 2022, with a return date of September 27, 2022.
`
`It arises from a contract for the sale
`
`of residential real property located in Norwalk, Connecticut by Katherine M. Jarozewski
`
`(the "Plaintiff’) to Natasha Bruton (the "Defendant") which contract was terminated by
`
`the Defendant, pursuantto its terms, on June 9, 2022 when the Defendant's mortgage
`
`lendernotified her that it could not approve her mortgage application because the value
`
`of the property wasinsufficient.
`
`The Defendant appeared by counsel on September 23, 2022 and moved to
`
`dismiss this action for lack of personaljurisdiction based on the insufficiency of service
`
`of process. The Defendant respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of
`
`that motion.
`
`ll. Factual Background
`
`The summonscontains the name of the Defendant, but insteadofsetting forth
`
`the address of her usual place of abode,it says, "c/o Miller Law Group, LLC, 799 Silver
`
`Lane 2nd Floor, Trumbull CT 06611." Attorney Kent M. Miller, of Miller Law Group, LLC,
`
`

`

`was the Defendant's attorney at the time of the termination of the contract.
`
`(A copy of
`
`Attorney Miller's notice to the Plaintiff's attorney terminating the contract on June 9,
`
`2022 is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.) Attorney Miller's law office is not the Defendant's
`
`usual place of abode. While no addressfor the Plaintiffs abode is contained in the
`
`complaint, the Plaintiff does allege in Paragraph 1 of the complaintthat the Defendantis
`
`"a resident of Bronx, New York", a fact which the Defendant hereby acknowledgesis
`
`true.
`
`The state marshal's return of service (Docket Entry No. 101.00) states that on
`
`September 9, 2022, he madeservice of process on the Defendantby leaving a true and
`
`attested copy of the summons and complaint in the hands of Sarah Gasper, a secretary
`
`at "Miller LLC"[sic], at 799 Silver Lane, 2nd, Floor, Trumbull, Connecticut. The
`
`Defendant never authorized Ms. Gasperor Attorney Miller to accept service of process
`
`on her behalf. (See the affidavit of the Defendant annexed hereto as Exhibit B.)
`
`Attorney Miller's law office in Trumbull, Connecticutis not the Defendant's usual
`
`place of abode, whichthe Plaintiff knows - and has herself pleaded- is in Bronx, New
`
`York. The only reason that the Defendant is even aware of the existence of the above-
`
`captioned lawsuit is that the Plaintiff emailed a copyofit to counsel for the Defendant on
`
`September 16, 2022 in responseto a letter counsel had emailed to herreal estate
`
`attorney, Eugene M. Kimmel, Esq., of Berchem Moses PC, on September 14, 2022,
`
`regardingthe Plaintiff's refusal to authorize Attorney Kimmel, the escrow agentholding
`
`the deposit funds, to return the deposit to the Defendant. The docketreflects that the
`
`Plaintiff returned the summons and complaint to Court on September 19, 2022, but did
`
`

`

`not file the state marshal's return of service until September 21, 2022.
`
`Ill. Law and Argument
`
`“A motion to dismiss ... properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially
`
`
`asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that
`
`should be heard by the court.” (Emphasisin original; internal quotation marks omitted.)
`
`Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 544, 590 A.2d 914 (1991). “A motion to dismiss
`
`tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction."
`
`(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cox v. Aiken, 278 Conn. 204, 210-11, 897 A.2d 71
`
`(2006). The standardfor ruling upon a motion to dismissis well established.
`
`“ ‘In ruling
`
`upon whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, a court must take the facts to
`
`be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the
`
`allegations, construing them in a manner mostfavorable to the pleader. Mahoneyv.
`
`Lensink, 213 Conn. 548, 567, 569 A.2d 518 (1990)....’ Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn.
`
`296, 308, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998). Furthermore,‘it is the law in our courts, asit is in the
`
`federal courts, that [a] court may dismiss a complaint onlyifit is clear that no relief could
`
`be granted underanyset of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.’
`
`(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 309, 709 A.2d 1089.” Villager Pond, Inc.v.
`
`Town of Darien, 54 Conn.App. 178, 183, 734 A.2d 1031 (1999). When challenging
`
`personaljurisdiction on the basis of insufficiency of service of process, the defendant
`
`bears the burden of proof. Knipple v. Viking Communications, Ltd., 236 Conn. 602, 607
`
`n. 9, 674A.2d 426 (1996); Knutson Mortg. Corp. v. Bernier, 67 Conn. App. 768, 771-72,
`
`789 A.2d 528 (2002).
`
`

`

`A court “has no authority to render a judgment against a person who wasnot
`
`properly served with process.” Jimenez v. DeRosa, 109 Conn.App. 332, 337, 951 A.2d
`
`632 (2008).
`
`“ ‘[T]he Superior Court ... may exercisejurisdiction over a person only if
`
`that person has been properly served with process, has consentedto the jurisdiction of
`
`the court or has waived any objection to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.’
`
`(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kim v. Magnotta, 249 Conn. 94, 101-102, 733 A.2d
`
`
`
`809 (1999). ‘[Wlhenaparticular method of serving processis setforth by statute, that
`
`method mustbe followed.... Unless service of process is made as the statute
`
`prescribes, the court to whichit is returnable does not acquire jurisdiction.’ (Citations
`
`omitted: internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Transportation v. Kahn,
`
`262 Conn. 257, 272, 811 A.2d 693 (2003).” Jimenez v. DeRosa, supra, at 338. Service
`
`of process on a non-residentindividual such as the Defendantis prescribed in C.G.S. §
`
`52-59b(c) and requires in-hand service atthe office of the Secretary of the State and
`
`service on the defendantat the defendant's last-known addressby registered or
`
`certified mail.
`
`“Facts showing the service of processin time, form, and manner sufficient to
`
`satisfy the requirements of mandatory statutes in that regard are essential to jurisdiction
`
`over the person.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bridgeport v.
`
`Debek, 210 Conn. 175, 179-80 (1989). “If [a state marshal] simply left the papers at a
`
`place where the defendantsdid notlive, service would not have beeneffective and
`
`jurisdiction would not have vested in the court. See Bove v. Bove, 77 Conn.App. 355,
`
`363, 823 A.2d 383 (2003). Abodeservice is noteffectiveif it is left at an addressthatis
`
`

`

`not the usual addressof the party to be served, and an action commenced by such
`
`improper service must be dismissed. Collins v. Scholz, 34 Conn.Supp. 501, 506, 373
`
`A.2d 200 (1976).” Hibner v. Bruening, 78 Conn. App. 456, 463, 828 A.2d 150 (2003).
`
`*”
`
`[T]he ‘usual place of abode’ presumptively is the defendant's homeat the time when
`
`service is made ... Whether a particular locale is the usual place of abodeis a question
`
`of fact.” (Citation omitted.) Jimenez v. DeRosa, supra,at 338.
`
`The Plaintiff, by her own words in Paragraph 1 of the complaint, knew that the
`
`Defendant's usual place of abode wasnotatherattorney's law office in Trumbull,
`
`Connecticut.
`
`“ '[W]hen a party knowsthat he has a causeof action, it is his own fault if
`
`he does not avail himself of those means whichthe law provides for prosecuting his
`
`claim, orinstituting such proceedings as the law regardssufficient to preserveit.’ [Amy
`
`v. Watertown, 130 U.S. 320, 9 S.Ct. 537, 32 L.Ed. 953 (1889)], at 325, 9 S.Ct. at
`
`539.
`
`... The defendant... was not hiding out, and alternative means of service were
`
`available to the plaintiff". Gallop v. Commercial Painting Co., Inc., 42 Conn.Supp. 187,
`
`196, 612 A.2d 826 (1992). Theinsufficiency of the state marshal’s service of process
`
`cannot be overlooked or excused, and dismissal is not only appropriate, but required by
`
`the lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`As the Defendant's purported service of process on the Defendantwasfatally
`
`flawed, insufficient and ineffective as a matter of law, the Defendant respectfully submits
`
`that her motion to dismiss for lack of personaljurisdiction ought to be granted.
`
`

`

`The Defendant, NATASHA BRUTON
`
`By:
`
`305638
`_/s/
`Jonathan J. Klein
`Juris Number 305638
`Parlatore Law Group, LLP
`1057 Broad Street, Suite 403
`Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604
`(203) 330-1900
`Her Attorney
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`| certify that a copy of the above wasorwill immediately be delivered
`
`electronically on September 23, 2022 to the self-represented defendant and that written
`
`consentfor electronic delivery was received from the self-represented defendant who
`
`wasor will immediately be electronically served, at:
`
`Katherine M. Jarozewski
`9 Loundsbury Avenue
`Norwalk, Connecticut 06851
`k.jarozewski@nm.com
`
`The Self-RepresentedPlaintiff
`
`/s/_ 305638
`Jonathan J. Klein
`
`

`

`+; Gmail
`
`Kent M. Miller <kmmillerjd@gmail.com>
`
`
`
`Bruton from Jarozewski -27 West Main Street, Unit 14, Norwalk, CT 06851
`Kent M. Miller <kmmillerjid@gmail.com>
`Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 3:39 PM
`To: ekimmel@berchemmoses.com
`Cc: Iryan@berchemmoses.com
`
`Dear Mr. Kimmel:
`
`| have been retained by Natasha Bruton, the buyer underthe contract in the above transaction. As you may know,she is no
`longer represented by Mr. Jorgensen.
`It is my understanding that you and yourclient are aware that Ms. Bruton was unable to obtain a written mortgage loan
`commitmentin the above matter due to an insufficient property value.
`It is my further understanding that yourclient has refused to authorize the return of myclient's deposit until you were provided
`with documentation of this. Such documentation is attached.
`
`Therefore, please acceptthis as formal notice pursuantto paragraph5 of the agreementthat myclient was unable to obtain
`written mortgage loan commitmentin the above matter due to an insufficient property value. This As a result, my client hereby
`requests the return of her deposit.
`
`Thank you.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Miller Law Group LLC, by
`
`Kent M. Miller
`Miller Law Group LLC
`PO Box 352
`Stratford, CT 06615
`Tel: 203-380-2161
`Fax: 866-496-4374(toll free)
`millerlawgroupct.com
`kmmillerjid@gmail.com
`
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain legally privileged
`and confidential information, andis intended only for the use ofthe individual or entity named above.
`If you are not the intended
`recipient, you are herebynotified that any dissemination, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communicationis strictly
`prohibited.
`If you have received this communication in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply email and destroy the
`original message.
`
`ADVISEMENT:Kent M. Miller, is an attorney admitted to the Connecticut state and federal bar andlicensed to practice law in
`the State of Connecticut and before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kent M.Milleris not licensed to practice law in any other state or the
`District of Columbia,orin the federal, or other courts of any otherjurisdictions. Kent M.Miller is not a certified public accountant and
`doesnotissue opinions on financial statements oroffer attestation services.
`
`IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Althoughthis written communication may addresscertain tax issues,it is not a reliance
`opinion as described in IRS Circular 230 and, therefore, it cannot be relied uponbyitself to avoid any tax penalties.
`If you would
`like a reliance opinionletter, please contact us and wewill discuss our procedures for preparing one.
`
`
`
`6 Notice of Action Taken - 1654547942042.pdf
`652K
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`Office #: 43607
`TX2-979-01-02, 4500 Amon Carter
`
`Blvd
`Fort Worth, TX 76155
`Phone: (469) 304-5921
`Office Fax No.: 1-866-409-1050
`
`Natasha Bruton
`atasha
`Bru
`27 Main
`St 14
`Norwalk,
`CT 06851-4714
`
`‘
`
`Date: June 6, 2022
`
`846
`Re: Application #:
`Loan Program: FIXED RATE FIRST-LIEN HOME LOAN
`Case #:
`
`Property Address: 27 Main St 14
`Norwalk, CT 06851-4714
`
`Description of Account, Transaction, or Requested Credit:
`MORTGAGE APPLICATION
`
`Natasha Bruton:
`
`NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN
`
`We're sorry - we can't approve your request for a homeloan right now.
`Wecarefully reviewed yourapplication and credit report(s) provided by the credit reporting agency(ies) listed below
`and unfortunately, we weren't able to approve your request because:
`
`* Collateral: Insufficient property value
`
`Want to know more about yourcredit?
`
`There are steps you can take to better understand your credit. Since you have the right to a free copy of yourcredit
`report, we recommend youstart there to get the best understanding. (People are sometimes surprised bythe things that
`are on their reports.)
`
`To get a copy, you can:
`Visit transunion.com/myoptions, call 1-800-888-4213, or write to: TransUnion, P.O. Box 1000, Chester, PA 19016-
`1000.
`
`The disclosures on the following pages provide details about your right to knowthe information in yourcredit report.
`
`We're here to help
`
`We want youto be financially successful. You can learn more about credit and home ownership on our Better Money
`Habits website (bettermoncyhabits.com), which provides tools and information to help you manage your moncy.
`
`NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN (NOAT.US)
`17634.49 (10/21)
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`NACAID: 2282304
`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`
`
`cMA10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8464410235000*
`
`

`

`LOAN #: 102323846
`
`Thank you for your application.
`Please see the important disclosures and information starting on the following pages.
`
`Ifyou have any questions regarding this notice, you should contact:
`
`Creditor's name: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`Creditor's address: TX2-982-05-04, 7105 Corporate Dr., Building C
`Plano, TX 75024
`Creditor's telephone number: (617) 250-6222
`Contact Name: Sheneathia La'Toya De La Oz
`NMLS Identifier: 1532990
`
`The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis
`of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicanthas the capacity to enter into a
`binding contract); because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program; or because
`the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Protection Act. The federal agency that
`administers compliance with this law concerningthis creditoris:
`
`ConsumerFinancial Protection Bureau
`1700 G St. NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN (NOAT.US)
`17634.49 (10/21)
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`NACAID: 2282304
`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`
`
`‘ccna0235000*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`LOAN#: 102323846
`
`5 Our credit decision was based in whole or in part on information obtained in a report from the consumerreporting
`agency listed below. You havearight underthe Fair Credit Reporting Act to know the information contained in
`yourcreditfile at the consumerreporting agency. The reporting agency played no part in our decision and is unable
`to supply specific reasons why we have denied credit to you. You also have a right to a free copy of your report
`from the reporting agency, if you requestit no later than 60 days after you receive this notice. In addition, if you
`find that any informationcontained in the report you receive is inaccurate or incomplete, you have the right to
`dispute the matter with the reporting agency.
`
`S% Our credit decision was based in whole or in part on information obtained from an affiliate or from an outside
`source other than a consumerreporting agency. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you have the right to make a
`written request, no later than 60 days after you receivethis notice, for disclosure of the nature ofthis information.
`
`NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN (NOAT.US)
`17634.49 (10/21)
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`NACAID: 2282304
`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`«ee23238464410235000*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`NO. FST-CV22-6058280-S
`
`KATHERINE M. JAROZEWSKI
`vs.
`NATASHA BRUTON
`
`: SUPERIOR COURT
`: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD-NORWALK
`
`: AT STAMFORD
`+ SEPTEMBERAS 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`AV PPORTOFMOTI D
`
`STATE OF NEWYORK)
`) ss.: Bronx
`)
`
`COUNTY OF BRONX
`
`43
`September 4s, 2022
`
`4.
`2.
`
`Natasha Bruton, having been duly sworn, deposes and says:
`| am over the age of 18 years and believe in the obligation of an oath.
`| am the defendantin the above-captionedcivil action.
`LLC, 799 Silver Lane, 2nd Floor,
`3. Theoffice of Kent M. Miller, Esq., Miller Law Group,
`| place of abode.
`Trumbull, Connecticut is not, and never has been, my usua
`4. On September 9, 2022, whena state marshal attests that he left a copy of the
`summonsand complaintin the above-captioned civil action for me with one Sarah
`Gasper, a secretary at Miller Law Group, LLC, in Trumbull, Connecticut, | was residing
`in Bronx, New York, as | have for many years.
`
`I never authorized Sarah Gasper, Attorney KentM.Miller or anyone working for
`5.
`Miller Law Group, LLC to accept service of process on my behalf.
`
`t
`110.Bruton
`rd
`Subscribed and sworn to before me this3day of September, 2022.
`
`
` MAXIELL MEDINA
`
`
`NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`Registration No. 01ME6340508
`Qualified in New York County
`My Commission Expires April 18, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`otary Publi
`My commission expires:
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`No. FST-CV22-6058280-S
`
`Superior Court
`
`Katherine M Jarozewski
`
`Judicial District of Stamford /Norwalk
`
`Vv.
`
`at Stamford
`
`Natasha Bruton
`
`September 26, 2022
`
`OPPOSITION to MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Plaintiff Katherine M. Jarozewski respectfully opposes, as per 2022 Connecticut Practice Book
`Sec. 10- 31, the Defendant Natasha Bruton’s MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION. The Memoin Support of OPPOSITION to MOTION TO
`DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTIONis attached.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`By: Kowloon RoSe.
`Katherine M Jarozewski, Pro se
`9 Loundsbury Ave, Norwalk CT 06851
`(203) 945-9018
`
`Shcd49293SEDN
`
`WEYLSladfS
`LSIOTvialgnr
`1-0404 2dl?
`2LOYYAMUObLEN:
`
`iA
`
`HO
`
`

`

`No. FST-CV22-6058280-S
`
`Katherine M Jarozewsk1
`
`Vv.
`
`Natasha Bruton
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Superior Court
`
`Judicial District of Stamford /Norwalk
`
`at Stamford
`
`September26, 2022
`
`Memo in Support of OPPOSITION to MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`This memo in support of the Plaintiff's (Katherine M Jarozewski) OPPOSITIONto the
`Defendant’s (Natasha Bruton) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
`JURISDICTIONis submitted to the Court by the Plaintiff in order to demonstrate to the Court
`that none of the Defendant’s statements within her MOTION’s proceduralhistory, nor factual
`background,nor law and argumentare valid; and that the entire content of the Plaintiffs
`COMPLAINTis not only valid, but also justified in being advancedto the nextstep of civil law
`proceedings.
`
`I. Procedural History
`1. The Defendant bases the entirety of herMOTIONupon the Defendant’s assumption
`that personaljurisdiction is lacking in this case. However,the Plaintiff's OPPOSITIONto the
`MOTIONactually demonstrates the contrary.
`
`2. On Mondaythe 19th of September 2022 the Defendant’s new Attorney Jonathan
`Klein verbally requested information from thePlaintiff, that being if the Plaintiff had proof of
`service. The Plaintiff replied that she would factcheck for accuracy prior to replying any further,
`and the Defendant’s new Attorney andthe Plaintiff scheduled a phonecall for two dayslater.
`The Plaintiff did the factchecking andinperson filed the properly served Proof of Service with
`the Court Clerk. The Plaintiff also called the Defendant’s new Attorney at the scheduled time on
`Wednesday the 21st, and left a voicemail message to please return the call.
`
`3. On Friday the 23rd of September the Defendant signed a sworn affidavit which
`includes a statement concerning her prior Attorney: “I never authorized Sarah Gasper, Attorney
`Kent M. Miller or anyone working for Miller Law Group, LLC to accept service of process on
`my behalf.” Howeverin that same affidavit, because the Defendant didn’t make the same or
`similar statementpertaining to her new Attorney Jonathan Klein, the Plaitiff is left unsure
`whether or not the Defendant has already given him the authorization to acceptservice of
`process on her behalf.
`
`4. OnFriday the 23rd as well, at 4:48pm the Defendant’s new Attorney Jonathan Klein
`emailed the Plaintiff notifying herthat if she’d not been served by a State Marshalalready she’d
`be served shortly. His email additionally stated in part, “Ms. Bruton will prevail in the end.
`It is
`up to you whether you wantto do this the easy way orthe hard way.
`I recommend the easy
`1
`
`

`

`way.” In this instance, again the Plaintiff is again left unsure whetheror not the Defendant has
`given authorization to her new Attorney either, to not onlyaccept service of process on her
`behalf, but also to order service ofprocess on her behalf.
`
`5. The Defendant’s statement that this civil action arises from a contract is not correct,
`because this civil action filed by the Plaintiff is fundamentally based uponthetortious actions of
`the Defendant during a period of time commencing April 24th. Thecivil lawcase the Defendant
`is filing howeveris based upona timeline commencing June 9th ascited in the Defendant’s
`MOTION. Althoughaplaintiff and defendant dispute over the commencementdateofa series
`of facts could exist within a given case, in the Plaintiff's civil law case, the intentional nature of
`the Defendant’s tortious actions on April 24th justify the separation of causes ofaction into two
`separate civil cases.
`
`6. The Defendant states in her MOTION that on June 9, 2022 she terminated a contract
`with the Defendant. In actuality the termination was in August and it was both ordered by and
`terminated bythe Plaintiff. But of moresignificance is the fact that on July 5th which was the
`referenced contract’s date scheduled to close, the Defendant through her prior Attorney asserted
`by email that there was no valid contract formed by a meeting ofthe minds. While the Contract
`law case beingfiled by the Defendant will address questions about a meeting of the minds,the
`Plaintiffs COMPLAINTfalls under Tort law as a separate case. Because, the questionin this
`Tort law case is about a changing of one’s mind. In this Tort lawcase, the Defendantsimply
`changed her mind.
`
`7. To establish a papertrail, the Defendant attached to her MOTIONa Bank of America
`letter for a declined loan application. But the letter lists Main St as the address for a property
`actually located on West Main St; the letter doesn’t indicate whether the Defendant’s loan
`application was for a 30 Year Conventional, a 100% LTV $0 Down $0 Closing Costs, a USDA
`Farmowners loan or a VA Dept loan; and because the letter doesn’t even show the dollar amount
`applied for, the loan application could have been for $357,000 or for $3,570,000. Yet the
`Defendant’s papertrail does not include any loan application letters from her Credit Union,the
`lender that the Defendant presentedin heroffer on April 25th. The Plaintiff's version of the
`papertrail is attached to this OPPOSITION. Again,any discussions about a contract or who
`terminated it and whenare all discussions for a Contract law case, not for this COMPLAINT.
`
`Il. Factual Background
`8. The Defendant asserts in her MOTIONthatthere’s a lack of personal jurisdiction
`based on an insufficiency of service of process. There actually was sufficiency of service of
`process. Additionally, the level of sufficiency metis far more than sufficient.
`
`9. The Plaintiff reviewed the process ofservice rules, in the Connecticut Practice Book,
`the Connecticut General Statutes, and the Connecticut State Marshal Manual, prior to ordering
`service. The Plaintiff spoke by phone with both the serving State Marshal andhis Staff to follow
`up on status and ensure proper service of the Summons & Complaint, which was indeed properly
`served to the Defendant on Friday the 9th of September.
`2
`
`

`

`10. Connecticut General Statutes sections 52-45a through 52-72 and Connecticut
`Practice Booksections 10-12 through 10-17 pertain to the service of process. The key language
`opens Statute Sec. 52-57 andit’s the focus of Practice Book Sec. 10-12 through 10-14.
`
`11. The opening language of Statute Sec. 52-57 reads, “Manner of service upon
`individuals, municipalities, corporations, partnerships and voluntaryassociations. (a) Except as
`otherwise provided, process in any civil action shall be served by leaving a true andattested copy
`ofit, including the declaration or complaint, with the defendant, orat his usual place of abode, in
`this state.” Given that the Connecticut General Assembly intentionally chose the word “Except”
`as the very first word of the section, the reader can anticipate plenty of examples to followin the
`section, and the reader can surmise as well that the Assembly’s intent allows for a broad
`interpretation. Serving to an abodeis not a requirement.
`
`12. The language of Practice Book further clarifies. Sec. 12-14 readsin part, “When a
`party is represented by an attorney, the service shall be made uponthe attorney unless service
`uponthe party is ordered by the judicial authority.” On Friday September 9th the Defendant was
`represented by an attorney and the Summons & Complaint were properly served to his office.
`Only after being served under her former attorney did the Defendant then seek new
`representation from a newattorney.
`
`Ul. Law and Argument
`13. The Defendant cites Connecticut General Statute Sec. 52-59b(c) asit pertainsto
`serving a non-resident individual. However the Defendantis failing to recognize that while she
`is an individual, she’s an individual who conducted businessin the state of Connecticut.
`Additionally the Defendant is an individual who currently retains an attorney and also retained
`one in Connecticut at the time she was served.
`
`14. The Defendantcites the case of Villager Pond Inc v. Town ofDarien. The language
`quoted says that the Court should dismiss this COMPLAINTonly if clearly there’s no way the
`Plaintiff could succeed with her case. In this COMPLAINTthePlaintiff has shownthere’s
`actually a strong case to be proven.
`
`15. The Defendantalso cites the cases of Knutson Mortg Corp v. Bernier and Knipple v.
`Viking Communications LLC. That language reads, “Whenchallenging personaljurisdiction on
`the basis of insufficiency of service of process, the defendant bears the burden ofproof.” In this
`case’s COMPLAINT and OPPOSITIONto Defendant’s MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK
`OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION,the defendant is the Defendant. And althoughthe Plaintiff
`does not even bear the burden,still the Plaintiff has proven both personaljurisdiction and the
`sufficiency of service.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`16. Because personaljurisdiction in this case is not lacking and processofthe Plaintiff's
`Summons & Complaint against the Defendant was properly served, and because none ofthe
`3
`
`

`

`arguments in the MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION were
`shownto be valid while all of the argumentsofthis OPPOSITION have been validated, and
`because the Plaintiff has further strengthenedthe allegations of her COMPLAINT against the
`Defendant, the Plaintiff asks the Court to oppose and decline the Defendant’s MOTION TO
`DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONALJURISDICTIONandto advancethis Tort law case to
`the next step of civil law proceedings.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF
`
`Bypathoont ProSe.
`Katherine M Jarozewski, Pré se
`9 Loundsbury Ave, Norwalk CT 06851
`(203) 945-9018
`
`

`

`
`
`na
`OE
`a
`&
`-
`7
`3
`: ESP if
`
`wide we mend a 2 Q
`
`“ass Federal Credit Union
`
`February 1, 2022
`
`Natasha Bruton
`2312 Grand Avenue
`Bronx, NY 10468
`
`Congratulations! Thank you for choosing TEG Federal Credit Union to provide you with
`financing for a new home. Your requestfor a mortgage has been Pre-Approval based on
`the following estimated terms:
`
`Loan Type:
`Sales Price:
`Seller Concession:
`Down Payment
`18t Loan Amount:
`Estimated Monthly Payment
`Taxes:
`HOA:
`
`30-year Fixed Rate Conventional Mortgage
`$420,000
`$0.00
`$84,000
`$336,000
`$2,471.28
`$4,000 per year estimated only
`$489
`
`Estimated cash required to close: $103,200
`Does not include: Cost of your attorney /taxes due seller or oil/water in tanks
`
`This pre-qualification letter has been issued using the information you provided on your
`application and the credit information we obtained with your permission. By providing
`documentation of your income and assets we will issue a Mortgage Loan Offer and
`Approval subject to such items as a Purchase Contract, Appraisal, Title and Home Owners
`Insurance.In addition, we may request further documentation as needed or required.
`Please note that this approval letter is valid for sixty (60) days.
`We look forward to providing you with home financing. If you have any questions,
`please feel free to contact us.
`
`Jessica Schoen
`Senior Mortgage Officer
`NMLSID: 22486
`TEG Federal Credit Union
`845-452-7323 ext. 1508
`jJessicas@tegfcu.com
`
`

`

`HA sulS-ACSE-SDS373752623
`
`PURCHASE AGREEMENT
`
`Date
`
`4/25/22
`
`Agreement Between_Katherine Jarozewski
`
`residing at_27 West Main Street Unit #14 Norwalk, CT 06851
`and Natasha Bruton
`
`who hereby agrees to SELL
`
`residing at__2312 Grand Avenue Bronx, NY 10468
`
`who hereby agrees to BUY
`
`the property known and described as _27 West Main Street Unit #14 Norwalk, CT 06851
`
`
`
`oceaniatranniesnnng
`
`Including the following extra items:
`
`Washer, Dryer, Dishwasher, Refrigerator, Oven Range, Curtain Rods, Ceiling Fans, Light Fixtures including
`Chandeliers, Bathroom Mirrors.
`
`
`
`
`Excluding the following items: n/a
`
`
`
`Terms and conditions of the sale are as follows:
`
`Price
`
`$407,500
`
`Payable $
`
`4,075
`
`Cash as a binder herewith, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged
`
`Payable $_ 45.925
`
`Cash on signing superseding contract (see below).
`
`
`
`Payable $ 357,500 Cash on taking title to premises on__7/5/22
`(Closing Date)
`
`Payable $
`
`CONTINGENCIES:
`
`By the buyer oppimns anew mentsage for the amount shown.
`This sale is
`is not
`contingent upon the buyer’s ability
`to obtain financing by 5/27/22
`, at the prevailing rate for30 years
`in the approximate amount shown.
`
`Buyer, Natasha Bruton agrees to provide a $10K Appraisal Gap Guarantee.
`
` Termite inspection
`Complete building inspection
`Septic inspection
`Well inspection
`Radon test
`To be completed by
`
`ooo
`
`OOO
`
`Pool Inspection
`
`Page 1, Buyers initial (Fa40_]
`
`DS
`
`

`

`S-49DB-ACBD-3DS0727524230YE eyewear
`
`archaser acknowledges that Seiler has Reke (has not 4brlJRwnished Purchaser with the Property Condition
`
`
`Disclosure Form required byConnecticut general stetues section 20-327) prier__ to Purchaser’s execution ofthis Agreement.
`If such Disclosure has not been furnished, Seller shall give and Purchaser shall receive a credit of $500 against
`the purchaseprice at closing.
`
`wf
`
`Premises will be conveyed by a Warranty Deed, free from all encumbrances except as stated herein; butif it
`appears there are additional encumbrances whenthe superseding contract is prepared, whichare not insurable
`withtitle insurance, the buyer maycancel this agreement and recoverhis/her down payment unless he/she is
`willing to take title subject to them.
`
`Contractof sale to be signed on or before__5/4/22
`
`This agreement to remain in force and effect and constitute a valid contract between parties hereto unless, or
`until, superseded by further contract between parties, incorporating detailed description of the property for
`adjustmentof taxes, rent, interest, insurance, premiums,etc.
`
`The SELLER and the BUYERfurtheragree that the above stipulations are to apply to and bindtheheirs,
`executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties.
`
`
`AOCEELEACCEPTEDSELLER
`
`
`atcitiatAooo
`
`
`ACCEPTED PURCHASER
`
` Le
`
`AESES26C14F6...
`
`Natasha Bruton
`NM
`
`NT
`
`SIGNED
`
`SIGNED
`
`
`
`
`WITNESS
`
`LISTING
`
`wdWITNESS
`
`
`
`SELLING
`
`Faith Egas
`
`Kelly McAllen
`AGENT
`AGENT
`Ntrust Realty
`Coldwell Banker Realty
`AGENCY
`AGENCY
`
`Eugene Kimmel
`SELLER ATTORNEY
`
`Attorney Address
`
`
`Attorney Phone and Fax
`
`
`Angelita DeSilva
`BUYER ATTORNEY
`
`
`632B Undercliff Avenue, Edgewater NJ 07020
`Attorney Address
`
`201-560-0281
`Attorney Phone and Fax
`
`

`

` Hedicaaemsanoe
`
`a
`ral
`Naghbarkod Aaalane es orgtration of slemariis
`
`Date:
`
`4/26/2022
`
`NACA ID: 2282304
`
`Member’s Name:
`
`Natasha Bruton
`
`Mortgage Counselor:
`Property Address:
`
`Sheneathia DeLaOz: (425) 602-6222 Extension 9813
`2/7 West Main Street Unit #14
`
`Norwalk, CT 06851
`
`Purchase Price:
`Property Type:
`Interest Rate:
`
`Term:
`
`$ 407,500
`Single Family
`4.375%
`
`30 yearfixed
`
`To Listing Agent & Seller:
`
`The above buyer(s) are NACA approved for the Best in America Mortgage to purchase the
`subject property. NACA has $15 Billion committed from Bank of Americ