Pnc Mortgage Corp. of America v. McGee, No. Cv94 031 50 64 (Nov. 7, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Pnc Mortgage Corp. of America v. McGee, No. Cv94 031 50 64 (Nov. 7, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11322, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 673

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

DocketNo. CV94 031 50 64

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11322 (Pnc Mortgage Corp. of America v. McGee, No. Cv94 031 50 64 (Nov. 7, 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

Pnc Mortgage Corp. of America v. McGee, No. Cv94 031 50 64 (Nov. 7, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11322, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 673 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS The motion to dismiss is denied. The proper return date appeared on the writ of summons sheet. An incorrect return date appeared in the body of the complaint. This scenario is very similar to Bowes v. Wilborn, 1993 Westlaw 427352 (Conn.Super.) In that case, the writ of summons named the Judicial District of New Haven as the court to which the case was to be returned. In contrast, the complaint made the case returnable to the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport. That count reviewed Connecticut General Statutes § 52-45a which states, in pertinent part, that the writ of summons shall describe, inter alia, "the court to which it is not returnable, the return day and the date and place for the filing of an appearance." The statute does not require the complaint to contain this same information. The court found that the writ of summons was correct and that the mistake of return date in the complaint did not nullify the plaintiff's compliance with Connecticut General Statutes § 52-45a. CT Page 11323

This court finds the Bowes count's logic persuasive.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS The motion to dismiss is denied. The proper return date appeared on the writ of summons sheet. An incorrect return date appeared in the body of the complaint. This scenario is very similar to Bowes v. Wilborn, 1993 Westlaw 427352 (Conn.Super.) In that case, the writ of summons named the Judicial District of New Haven as the court to which the case was to be returned. In contrast, the complaint made the case returnable to the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport. That count reviewed Connecticut General Statutes § 52-45a which states, in pertinent part, that the writ of summons shall describe, inter alia, "the court to which it is not returnable, the return day and the date and place for the filing of an appearance." The statute does not require the complaint to contain this same information. The court found that the writ of summons was correct and that the mistake of return date in the complaint did not nullify the plaintiff's compliance with Connecticut General Statutes § 52-45a. CT Page 11323

This court finds the Bowes count's logic persuasive.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11322, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pnc-mortgage-corp-of-america-v-mcgee-no-cv94-031-50-64-nov-7-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack