Sanstrom v. Strickland

Connecticut Appellate Court

Sanstrom v. Strickland

523 A.2d 507, 10 Conn. App. 166, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 873

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 10, 1987

Docket4835

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 523 A.2d 507 (Sanstrom v. Strickland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanstrom v. Strickland, 523 A.2d 507, 10 Conn. App. 166, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 873 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s discharge of a lis pendens which had been filed against real property owned by the defendants pursuant to General Statutes § 52-325.

On January 6, 1986, after a hearing held in accordance with General Statutes § 52-325a, the trial court found no probable cause to sustain the lis pendens and granted the defendants’ motion to discharge it. General Statutes § 52-325c (b) provides in pertinent part: “No appeal shall be taken from such order except within seven days thereof.” The plaintiffs’ appeal, therefore, absent a proper extension of time to file an appeal, should have been filed on or before January 13, 1986. The plaintiffs did not file this appeal until January 21, 1986. “ ‘ “The right of appeal is purely statutory and is accorded only if the conditions fixed by statute and the rules of court for taking and prosecut[167]*167ing the appeal are met.” ’ ” DeTeves v. DeTeves, 202 Conn. 292, 295, 520 A.2d 608 (1987). Since this appeal is not timely, it is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s discharge of a lis pendens which had been filed against real property owned by the defendants pursuant to General Statutes § 52-325.

On January 6, 1986, after a hearing held in accordance with General Statutes § 52-325a, the trial court found no probable cause to sustain the lis pendens and granted the defendants’ motion to discharge it. General Statutes § 52-325c (b) provides in pertinent part: “No appeal shall be taken from such order except within seven days thereof.” The plaintiffs’ appeal, therefore, absent a proper extension of time to file an appeal, should have been filed on or before January 13, 1986. The plaintiffs did not file this appeal until January 21, 1986. “ ‘ “The right of appeal is purely statutory and is accorded only if the conditions fixed by statute and the rules of court for taking and prosecut[167]*167ing the appeal are met.” ’ ” DeTeves v. DeTeves, 202 Conn. 292, 295, 520 A.2d 608 (1987). Since this appeal is not timely, it is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 A.2d 507, 10 Conn. App. 166, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanstrom-v-strickland-connappct-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack