Norvig v. Creative Business Services, No. Cv00 033 92 66 S (Jan. 9, 2001) Ct Page 457

Connecticut Superior Court

Norvig v. Creative Business Services, No. Cv00 033 92 66 S (Jan. 9, 2001) Ct Page 457

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 456

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 2001

DocketNo. CV00 033 92 66 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 456 (Norvig v. Creative Business Services, No. Cv00 033 92 66 S (Jan. 9, 2001) Ct Page 457) 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

Norvig v. Creative Business Services, No. Cv00 033 92 66 S (Jan. 9, 2001) Ct Page 457, 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 456 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, Donna Norvig, brought this action against the defendant, Creative Business Services, LLC, alleging that the defendant damaged her vehicle with its car washing equipment. The case was referred to the court's fact-finding program pursuant to General Statutes §52-549n. The defendant objects to the acceptance of the fact finder's report, dated November 30, 2000, on the ground that the fact finder lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Specifically, the defendant argues that the case should not have been referred to the fact finder because it is not a contract action.

Section 52-549n provides, in relevant part, that the court may refer to a fact finder, "any contract action . . . in which only money damages are claimed and which is based upon an express or implied promise to pay a definite sum, and in which the amount . . . is less than fifty thousand dollars. . . ." Because the plaintiff's action is not predicated on contract, it does not comply with the statutory requirements of §52-549n, and therefore, the fact finder lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Beizer v. Goepfert, 28 Conn. App. 693 (1992); McKeever v. von Reiter, 15 Conn. App. 194 (1988). Accordingly, the reference to the fact finder is revoked and the case is restored to the regular court docket for all appropriate proceedings.

Moraghan, J.T.R.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 The plaintiff, Donna Norvig, brought this action against the defendant, Creative Business Services, LLC, alleging that the defendant damaged her vehicle with its car washing equipment. The case was referred to the court's fact-finding program pursuant to General Statutes §52-549n. The defendant objects to the acceptance of the fact finder's report, dated November 30, 2000, on the ground that the fact finder lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Specifically, the defendant argues that the case should not have been referred to the fact finder because it is not a contract action.

Section 52-549n provides, in relevant part, that the court may refer to a fact finder, "any contract action . . . in which only money damages are claimed and which is based upon an express or implied promise to pay a definite sum, and in which the amount . . . is less than fifty thousand dollars. . . ." Because the plaintiff's action is not predicated on contract, it does not comply with the statutory requirements of §52-549n, and therefore, the fact finder lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Beizer v. Goepfert, 28 Conn. App. 693 (1992); McKeever v. von Reiter, 15 Conn. App. 194 (1988). Accordingly, the reference to the fact finder is revoked and the case is restored to the regular court docket for all appropriate proceedings.

Moraghan, J.T.R.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norvig-v-creative-business-services-no-cv00-033-92-66-s-jan-9-2001-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack