Nouh v. Estate of Shuttleworth, No. Cv96 0154297 (Feb. 21, 1997)
This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 1330 (Nouh v. Estate of Shuttleworth, No. Cv96 0154297 (Feb. 21, 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.
Opinion
The complaint alleges that on or about September 8, 1994, CT Page 1331 Mohamed Nouh received a blood lead screen which revealed a significantly elevated lead level indicating undue exposure to toxic lead. The complaint further alleges that on or about September 8, 1994, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §
Magdy Nouh brings the current suit as the parent and next best friend of Mohamed Nouh, against the defendants, the Estate of Marion T. Shuttleworth, Robert G. Krause, Esq., the conservator of Marion T. Shuttleworth, and Marian Hartig, the executrix of the will of Marion T. Shuttleworth, for personal injuries and expenses attributable to the alleged negligence of the defendants.
The defendants have moved (#102) to dismiss the complaint as to the Estate of Marion T. Shuttleworth and Robert G. Krause, Esq., conservator.
The plaintiff has not filed any papers in opposition to this motion. "The motion to dismiss shall be used to assert (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (3) improper venue, (4) insufficiency of process, and (5) insufficiency of service of process." Practice Book § 143. "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." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gurliacci v. Mayer,
The defendants claim that the plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action against the Estate of Marion T. Shuttleworth because the court lacks jurisdiction. "It is elemental that in order to confer jurisdiction on the court the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is he or it must be a person in law or a legal entity with legal capacity to sue. . . . An estate is not a legal entity. It is neither a natural nor artificial person, but is merely a name to indicate the sum total of the assets and liabilities of the decedent or CT Page 1332 incompetent. . . . Not having a legal existence, it can neither sue nor be sued." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Isaac v. Mount Sinai Hospital,
The defendants also seek to dismiss the complaint as to Krause on the grounds that the end of the conservatorship upon the death of Shuttleworth terminated the legal entity of the conservator. The death of the incapable person terminates the conservatorship. General Statutes § 45-77; Kerin v. Stangle,
Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 20th day of February, 1997.
WILLIAM B. LEWIS, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 1330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nouh-v-estate-of-shuttleworth-no-cv96-0154297-feb-21-1997-connsuperct-1997.