Bishop v. Thomas, No. Cv95 0549395 (Oct. 23, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10593
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedOctober 23, 1997
DocketNo. CV95 0549395 CT Page 10594
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10593 (Bishop v. Thomas, No. Cv95 0549395 (Oct. 23, 1997)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bishop v. Thomas, No. Cv95 0549395 (Oct. 23, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10593 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS The Defendant Commissioner of the State of Connecticut Department of Social Services (Commissioner) moves to dismiss Plaintiff's administrative appeal, for a failure to substitute as party Plaintiff an executor or administrator of the late Plaintiff's estate.

The Plaintiff died on March 25, 1996. General Statutes § 52-599 in essence allows a substitution as a matter of right within six months of death, and discretionary substitution thereafter if "good cause" is shown for the delay. See Worden v.Francis, 170 Conn. 186, 188; Dorsey v. Honeyman, 14 Conn. 397,400 (1954); Schoolhouse Corp. v. Wood, 43 Conn. App. 586, 588-89 (1996) cert. denied, 240 Conn. 913 (1997).

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was filed on August 8, 1997, in excess of sixteen months after Plaintiff's death. Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss in accordance with Practice Book § 143.

Plaintiff, on October 20, 1997, the date the Motion to Dismiss was orally argued, filed a "Motion of Fiduciary to Be Substituted as Party." The Plaintiff's motion indicates that the co-executors of Plaintiff's will anticipate appointment as Executors within fourteen days.

Good cause is defined as a substantial reason amounting in law to a legal excuse for failing to perform an act required by law and a legally sufficient ground or reason. Schoolhouse Corp.v. Wood, supra, 43 Conn. App. 588; Robert v. Honeywell, Inc.,33 Conn. App. 619, 626, 637, cert. denied 229 Conn. 909 (1994); andSlifkin v. Condec Corp., 13 Conn. App. 538, 549 (1988).

Plaintiff has failed to establish a good cause for failure to move to substitute or even to qualify an executor or administrator in the eighteen months since Plaintiff's death.

The Motion to Dismiss is Granted. The appeal is dismissed. CT Page 10595

Robert F. McWeeny, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Worden v. Francis
365 A.2d 1205 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1976)
Slifkin v. Condec Corp.
538 A.2d 231 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Roberto v. Honeywell, Inc.
637 A.2d 405 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1994)
Schoolhouse Corp. v. Wood
684 A.2d 1191 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-thomas-no-cv95-0549395-oct-23-1997-connsuperct-1997.