Pilieri v. Appeal From Probate, No. Cv90 27 27 70 (Apr. 3, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Pilieri v. Appeal From Probate, No. Cv90 27 27 70 (Apr. 3, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3705

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 3, 1991

DocketNo. CV90 27 27 70

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3705 (Pilieri v. Appeal From Probate, No. Cv90 27 27 70 (Apr. 3, 1991)) 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

Pilieri v. Appeal From Probate, No. Cv90 27 27 70 (Apr. 3, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3705 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR HEARING By motion dated December 5, 1990, the plaintiff seeks to preserve a notice of lis pendens filed at the commencement of his appeal from probate. The appeal was dismissed because the appeal was not timely filed. The plaintiff requests the court to continue the effectiveness of his notice of lis pendens under CT Page 3706 General Statutes 52-72 (c) while he attempts to cure the defect which lead to the dismissal. He claims the defect can be remedied under General Statutes 52-72 (a). See Weidlich v. Comley, 18 Conn. Sup. 479 (1953)

The motion for a hearing is denied as is the request to continue and preserve the notice of lis pendens. This ruling should not be construed as an opinion on plaintiff's ability to cure the appeal under the provisions of General Statutes52-72(a).

THIM, JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 RE: MOTION FOR HEARING By motion dated December 5, 1990, the plaintiff seeks to preserve a notice of lis pendens filed at the commencement of his appeal from probate. The appeal was dismissed because the appeal was not timely filed. The plaintiff requests the court to continue the effectiveness of his notice of lis pendens under CT Page 3706 General Statutes 52-72 (c) while he attempts to cure the defect which lead to the dismissal. He claims the defect can be remedied under General Statutes 52-72 (a). See Weidlich v. Comley, 18 Conn. Sup. 479 (1953)

The motion for a hearing is denied as is the request to continue and preserve the notice of lis pendens. This ruling should not be construed as an opinion on plaintiff's ability to cure the appeal under the provisions of General Statutes52-72(a).

THIM, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pilieri-v-appeal-from-probate-no-cv90-27-27-70-apr-3-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack