## Facts

- Tyrone E. Payne went to TK Auto Wholesalers to buy a used 1995 Lincoln Mark VIII and represented himself as his cousin, Paul Payne.
- Payne used Paul Payne’s driver’s license and completed a credit application and purchase order in Paul Payne’s name.
- Payne paid a $1,300 cash down payment; the cash had been stolen from Paul Payne along with his identity documents.
- A dealership employee noticed that Payne did not match the license photo but continued the transaction.
- Because financing approval and registration were pending, Payne left without taking the vehicle.
- The employee contacted the real Paul Payne, who denied involvement and reported that his cousin had stolen his identity; police instructed the employee to invite Payne back.
- When Payne returned and began completing registration documents as “Paul Payne,” police arrested him.
- Payne was later convicted of identity theft, forgery, attempt to commit larceny, and criminal impersonation.
- While incarcerated, Payne sued the dealership seeking return of the $1,300 and substantial punitive damages, alleging statutory theft, unconscionability, and CUTPA violations.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling Payne lacked standing because he had no legally cognizable interest in stolen money, and denied his motion to open the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff who paid a down payment using stolen funds and a stolen identity lacks standing to sue the dealer for retention of the payment and related damages.
2. Whether the trial court improperly treated merits-based defenses (illegality and fault) as jurisdictional by dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held Payne had standing because he alleged a colorable injury traceable to the dealership and potentially redressable by judicial relief.
- The court ruled that Payne’s unlawful conduct and the stolen origin of the funds concern potential defenses and public-policy limits on recovery, not subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is a threshold jurisdictional inquiry focused on whether the plaintiff alleges a colorable injury to an interest the law recognizes, fairly traceable to the defendant, and likely redressable by a favorable decision.
- Courts must keep standing distinct from the merits; a plaintiff’s likelihood of success, including illegality-based defenses, does not determine jurisdiction.
- A plaintiff’s criminal or wrongful conduct does not automatically eliminate standing; doctrines such as illegality and in pari delicto operate as defenses to relief addressed in merits proceedings.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction should not be used to resolve substantive disputes that belong in adjudication of the claim and defenses.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that alleged wrongdoing by the plaintiff and the stolen character of the funds did not, by themselves, defeat standing, and that the trial court therefore erred in dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; any bar to recovery based on illegality or fault must be handled on the merits after remand.


Payne v. TK Auto Wholesalers, 98 Conn. App. 533, 911 A.2d 747 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)