State v. Regnier

Connecticut Superior Court

State v. Regnier

356 A.2d 912, 33 Conn. Super. Ct. 14, 33 Conn. Supp. 14, 1975 Conn. Super. LEXIS 205

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 4, 1975

DocketFile 195389

StatusPublished

This text of 356 A.2d 912 (State v. Regnier) 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

State v. Regnier, 356 A.2d 912, 33 Conn. Super. Ct. 14, 33 Conn. Supp. 14, 1975 Conn. Super. LEXIS 205 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

McCarthy, J.

The state brings this action to contest disallowance of a claim against the decedent’s estate disallowed on May 14,1973. That writ was served April 8,1975, and the defendant demurs *15 to the complaint on the ground that “[t]he plaintiff has failed to initiate the action within the statutory time period,” which is four months after disallowance. General Statutes § 45-210.

Generally, the sovereign is not subject to statutes of limitation. State v. Goldfarb, 160 Conn. 320, 323. The state, however, is bound by the nonclaim statute, § 45-205 of the General Statutes. Goldfarb, supra, 326. While that section’s operation differs from that of § 45-210, in issue here, their purposes are similar, both designed to “facilitate the speedy settlement of estates.” Goldfarb, supra; Robbins v. Coffing, 52 Conn. 118, 141. The sovereign should abide by the statute, “to avoid the indefinite postponement of the settlement of estates to the detriment of the rightful beneficiaries, a purpose to which government as well as any other creditor should be required to adhere.” Goldfarb, supra.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained.

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

McCarthy, J.

The state brings this action to contest disallowance of a claim against the decedent’s estate disallowed on May 14,1973. That writ was served April 8,1975, and the defendant demurs *15 to the complaint on the ground that “[t]he plaintiff has failed to initiate the action within the statutory time period,” which is four months after disallowance. General Statutes § 45-210.

Generally, the sovereign is not subject to statutes of limitation. State v. Goldfarb, 160 Conn. 320, 323. The state, however, is bound by the nonclaim statute, § 45-205 of the General Statutes. Goldfarb, supra, 326. While that section’s operation differs from that of § 45-210, in issue here, their purposes are similar, both designed to “facilitate the speedy settlement of estates.” Goldfarb, supra; Robbins v. Coffing, 52 Conn. 118, 141. The sovereign should abide by the statute, “to avoid the indefinite postponement of the settlement of estates to the detriment of the rightful beneficiaries, a purpose to which government as well as any other creditor should be required to adhere.” Goldfarb, supra.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 A.2d 912, 33 Conn. Super. Ct. 14, 33 Conn. Supp. 14, 1975 Conn. Super. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-regnier-connsuperct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack