Smith v. Phoenix Founders, Inc., No. Cv 90-0373972 (Sep. 30, 1992)
This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 9192 (Smith v. Phoenix Founders, Inc., No. Cv 90-0373972 (Sep. 30, 1992)) 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.
Opinion
The defendant Jan Felber filed a Request to Revise dated May 1, 1990. She did not request that the plaintiff add a prayer for relief.
More than two years after the action was commenced the defendant Jan Felber moved to dismiss on the grounds that the failure to contain a prayer for relief deprived the court of jurisdiction. The defendant relies on Deveau v. Skidmore,
On July 1, 1978, the Superior Court became the sole defendant under a contract to purchase real estate. The original complaint did contain a statement that the amount in demand was in excess of $15,000.00.
The defendant Jan Felber filed a Request to Revise dated May 1, 1990. She did not request that the plaintiff add a prayer for relief.
More than two years after the action was commenced the defendant Jan Felber moved to dismiss on the grounds that the failure to contain a prayer for relief deprived the court of jurisdiction. The defendant relies on Deveau v. Skidmore,
On July 1, 1978, the Superior Court became the sole court for all causes of action in Connecticut except for actions in which the Probate Court had original jurisdiction. The Superior Court now has jurisdiction of all matters, regardless of the dollar amount of damages claimed. Therefore, the circumstances of Deveau no longer apply.
It is obvious from the original complaint and all subsequent complaints that the plaintiffs are seeking money damages, relief which is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.
The plaintiffs filed a Request for Leave to Amend Complaint dated May 21, 1992. The offered Amended Complaint contains a Prayer for relief on a separate page.
175 and Connecticut Gen. Stat.,
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Aurigemma, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 9192, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 1194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-phoenix-founders-inc-no-cv-90-0373972-sep-30-1992-connsuperct-1992.