Weld v. L'Hermitage Condominium Assoc., No. Cv97 06 08 74 (Jul. 28, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Weld v. L'Hermitage Condominium Assoc., No. Cv97 06 08 74 (Jul. 28, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9231

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 28, 1998

DocketNo. CV97 06 08 74

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9231 (Weld v. L'Hermitage Condominium Assoc., No. Cv97 06 08 74 (Jul. 28, 1998)) 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

Weld v. L'Hermitage Condominium Assoc., No. Cv97 06 08 74 (Jul. 28, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9231 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS The defendant L'Hermitage Condominium Association, Inc. now moves to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff pursuant to P.B. § 10-30, et seq. and § 52-46a of the general statutes because of late return of process. The writ's return day was December 16, 1997. Service was timely made by the Sheriff but the writ was not timely returned to the Clerk after service. The provisions of § 52-46a of the statutes require that process be returned to the Clerk not later than six days prior to the return date. In this case the process was not returned to the Clerk until one day before, on December 15, 1997. The statutory requirement is mandatory. Rogozinski v. American Food Service Equipment Corp. ,211 Conn. 431, 433, 559 A.2d 1110 (1989). The case is dismissed. See Rana v. Ritacco, 236 Conn. 330, 339, 672 A.2d 946 (1996).

FLYNN, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 ON MOTION TO DISMISS The defendant L'Hermitage Condominium Association, Inc. now moves to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff pursuant to P.B. § 10-30, et seq. and § 52-46a of the general statutes because of late return of process. The writ's return day was December 16, 1997. Service was timely made by the Sheriff but the writ was not timely returned to the Clerk after service. The provisions of § 52-46a of the statutes require that process be returned to the Clerk not later than six days prior to the return date. In this case the process was not returned to the Clerk until one day before, on December 15, 1997. The statutory requirement is mandatory. Rogozinski v. American Food Service Equipment Corp. ,211 Conn. 431, 433, 559 A.2d 1110 (1989). The case is dismissed. See Rana v. Ritacco, 236 Conn. 330, 339, 672 A.2d 946 (1996).

FLYNN, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weld-v-lhermitage-condominium-assoc-no-cv97-06-08-74-jul-28-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack