Town of Southbury v. American Builders, Inc.

295 A.2d 566, 162 Conn. 633
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedApril 19, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 295 A.2d 566 (Town of Southbury v. American Builders, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Town of Southbury v. American Builders, Inc., 295 A.2d 566, 162 Conn. 633 (Colo. 1972).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By amended complaint, the plaintiff town of Southbury sought an injunction to compel the defendants to vacate and demolish a building in Southbury, on the ground that the building violated the Southbury zoning regulations. The defendant answered, filed five special defenses and a counterclaim asking for a judgment declaring the zoning regulations of the plaintiff town null and void. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on both the complaint and the counterclaim.

[634]*634During oral argument the defendants acknowledged that they no longer had any interest in the premises in question because of a foreclosure subsequent to this appeal. Although a party may have had an appealable interest in a controversy, if, after judgment, his interest is either conveyed or transferred absolutely or terminated by operation of law, his right to appeal is lost, since he no longer has any interest in the litigation and is not injured by the result of the action. Newton v. Barnett, 146 Conn. 344, 346, 150 A.2d 821; Braasch v. Mandel, 40 Del. Ch. 12, 172 A.2d 271; 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error, § 179.

As to the counterclaim, nowhere therein is there any allegation made that the defendants have any interest which would be affected so as to give them standing to prosecute their counterclaim. Before the hearing of this appeal the plaintiff had moved to dismiss it on the ground that the defendants lacked standing to prosecute it. Southbury v. American Builders, Inc., 162 Conn. 638, 284 A.2d 306. On the information then before us and, in the absence of a full record, we were unable to determine the merits of that motion and it was, therefore, denied.

Having now on the appeal examined the full record and having the benefit of full briefs and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the defendants did not allege sufficient interest or standing on the subject matter to prosecute their counterclaim. Avery’s Appeal, 117 Conn. 201, 206, 167 A. 544; 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error, § 182.

As to the appeal from the judgment on the amended complaint, it is dismissed. As to the appeal from the judgment on the counterclaim, the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the counterclaim.

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

Related

Handsome, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2015
Fountain Pointe, LLC v. Calpitano
76 A.3d 636 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2013)
Stauton v. Madison Pzc, No. Cv 01-0455637 S (Feb. 10, 2003)
2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 2151 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2003)
Norwood Dean, LLC v. Crt Construction, No. Cv-01-0451667 S (Sep. 21, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13113 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
The Price Company v. P. Z. Board, No. Cv00-0072628s (Aug. 31, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11988 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
R & R Pool & Home, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
684 A.2d 1207 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1996)
B D Assoc. v. Zba of North Stonington, No. Cv 94 053 13 30 (Oct. 22, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7673 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Willis v. Ribiero, No. Cv91 0043057 (May 30, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4192-C (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Ayala v. Smith
671 A.2d 345 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996)
Paupack Development v. Conservation Comm., No. 30 84 48 (Jan. 14, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1140 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
Timber Trails v. Plan. Z. Comm'n, Sherman, No. 27 21 70 (Sep. 16, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8675 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Telker v. Plan. Zon. Bd. of Milford, No. Cv90-032227 (Jan. 4, 1991)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 383 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1991)
Fuller v. Planning & Zoning Commission
573 A.2d 1222 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1990)
Sobocinski v. Freedom of Information Commission
566 A.2d 703 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)
City National Bk of Conn. v. Henderson
468 A.2d 1258 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1983)
Groesbeck v. Sotire
467 A.2d 1245 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1983)
McNeil v. Tyson
432 A.2d 328 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1981)
Nader v. Altermatt
347 A.2d 89 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
295 A.2d 566, 162 Conn. 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-southbury-v-american-builders-inc-conn-1972.