Pinnix v. LaMorte

438 A.2d 102, 182 Conn. 342, 1980 Conn. LEXIS 992
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedNovember 11, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 438 A.2d 102 (Pinnix v. LaMorte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pinnix v. LaMorte, 438 A.2d 102, 182 Conn. 342, 1980 Conn. LEXIS 992 (Colo. 1980).

Opinion

*343 Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action seeking a judgment declaring a mortgage note and deed invalid on the ground that the defendant lender had charged an excessive rate of interest on the loan. The plaintiff’s wife was solely liable on the note, but was never given reasonable notice of or made a party to the action. The court rendered summary judgment in the defendant’s favor and the plaintiff appealed.

Practice Book, 1978, § 390 (d) governing actions for declaratory judgment requires all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint to be parties to the action or have reasonable notice thereof. Failure to observe this requirement deprives the court of jurisdiction over the case. State ex rel. Kelman v. Schaffer, 161 Conn. 522, 526-27, 290 A.2d 327 (1971). Along with his prayer for declaratory relief, the plaintiff sought an injunction and damages. These claims must fall with the claim for a declaratory judgment because they were merely ancillary to it. Clough v. Wilson, 170 Conn. 548, 556, 368 A.2d 231 (1976).

The defendant filed a counterclaim for damages resulting from the plaintiff’s failure to pay to the defendant funds held as security for the note, which the defendant alleged was in default. The court’s granting of summary judgment on this counterclaim is also appealed from. Neither in the judgment file nor in the memorandum of decision, however, are any damages awarded to the defendant. We therefore view the judgment as relating only to the question of liability. See Practice Book, 1978, § 385. Such a judgment is not a final judgment from which an appeal lies. New Haven Redevelopment Agency v. Research Associates, Inc., 153 Conn. 118, *344 120, 214 A.2d 375 (1965). Because the lack of a final judgment is a jurisdictional defect, we must dismiss the appeal. Id.

There is error in the judgment on the complaint, the judgment as to it is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. As to the appeal from the counterclaim, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pizza Connection, Inc.
740 A.2d 408 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
Perkins v. Colonial Cemeteries, Inc.
734 A.2d 1010 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
Debernardo v. Pinewood Lake Assn., Inc.
747 A.2d 1076 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Debernardo v. Pinewood Lake Assoc., No. X01-Cv93-0149841 (Mar. 11, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3150 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Papa v. Thimble Creek Condominium Ass'n
716 A.2d 947 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc. v. Gurski
715 A.2d 819 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
Hertz Corp. v. Federal Insurance
713 A.2d 820 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)
Tureck v. George
687 A.2d 1309 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1997)
Fromer v. Department of Economic Development, No. 537237 (Jun. 4, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4426 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assoc. v. Yocum, No. Cv940539691 (May 1, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4577 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
P.R.I.C.E., Inc. v. Keeney, No. Cv94 542469 (Mar. 20, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2572 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Ertel v. Commissioner of Envt'l Prot., No. Cv940536976 (Mar. 8, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2419 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Cristwood Con. v. Bridgeport Com. Hlth., No. Cv940316997s (Dec. 12, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12649 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Pacific Emp. Ins. v. the Inn at Falls Vil., No. Cv93 0531523 (May 13, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5231 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Nestor v. Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 341741 (Apr. 23, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 3964 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
Mills v. Pettit, No. 57933 (Jun. 10, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5409 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Balf Co. v. Spera Construction Co.
608 A.2d 682 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)
Loureiro v. Loureiro, No. 058735 (Apr. 30, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 3979 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Salem Taxpayers v. Teel, No. 51 92 72 (Feb. 25, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1063 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Essex Savings Bank v. Frimberger
597 A.2d 1289 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
438 A.2d 102, 182 Conn. 342, 1980 Conn. LEXIS 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinnix-v-lamorte-conn-1980.