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

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided November 7, 1994·No. No. CV94 031 50 64·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS The motion to dismiss is denied.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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS The motion to dismiss is denied.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.

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

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11322 (Pnc Mortgage Corp. of America v. McGee, No. Cv94 031 50 64 (Nov. 7, 1994)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related