Mancini v. Wyzik, No. Cv93-0520862 S (Apr. 13, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Mancini v. Wyzik, No. Cv93-0520862 S (Apr. 13, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3591

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 13, 1994

DocketNo. CV93-0520862 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3591 (Mancini v. Wyzik, No. Cv93-0520862 S (Apr. 13, 1994)) 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

Mancini v. Wyzik, No. Cv93-0520862 S (Apr. 13, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3591 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint claiming that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction of the cause by virtue of Connecticut General Statute 52-572b. That statute provides:

"No action may be brought upon any cause arising from alienation of affections or from breach of a CT Page 3592 promise to marry."

The motion to dismiss is denied. Although it would appear that certain portions of the complaint allege a breach of promise to marry, other portions of the complaint appear to allege a breach of contract wherein defendant's promises caused the plaintiff to sell her own home and to expend substantial funds to complete renovations in a home purchased by the defendant. The court has jurisdiction to hear such a breach of contract. Piccininni v. Hajus, 180 Conn. 369; Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333.

Allen, State Trial Referee

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint claiming that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction of the cause by virtue of Connecticut General Statute 52-572b. That statute provides:

"No action may be brought upon any cause arising from alienation of affections or from breach of a CT Page 3592 promise to marry."

The motion to dismiss is denied. Although it would appear that certain portions of the complaint allege a breach of promise to marry, other portions of the complaint appear to allege a breach of contract wherein defendant's promises caused the plaintiff to sell her own home and to expend substantial funds to complete renovations in a home purchased by the defendant. The court has jurisdiction to hear such a breach of contract. Piccininni v. Hajus, 180 Conn. 369; Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333.

Allen, State Trial Referee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancini-v-wyzik-no-cv93-0520862-s-apr-13-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack