165 Conn. App. 239
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Allied Associates (a Connecticut general partnership) sued Q-Tran in 2009, alleging breach of a commercial lease for property at 304 Bishop Avenue, Bridgeport.
- The complaint attached the lease showing Allied Associates as the lessor, but Allied had conveyed the property by quitclaim to Bishop Allied Associates, LLC (Bishop) on October 23, 2001, and later merged into Bishop on December 31, 2011.
- Q-Tran moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing Allied lacked standing because it no longer owned the property when the suit was filed and the complaint did not identify Allied as a registered entity.
- Allied moved, under General Statutes § 52-109 and Practice Book § 9-20, to substitute Bishop as the plaintiff, asserting the suit was commenced in Allied’s name through error and that Allied retained sublessor rights until the merger.
- The trial court found Allied was a valid entity but lacked a legal interest in the property at filing, and denied substitution because Allied’s failure to substitute sooner constituted negligence (relying on DiLieto/Kortner), then dismissed the action for lack of standing.
- The Appellate Court reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court applied an overly narrow definition of “mistake”; the Supreme Court’s later decision in Fairfield Merrittview clarified that “mistake” in § 52-109 is to be read in its ordinary, broader sense and does not require absence of negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allied had standing to sue when the action was commenced | Allied argued it retained contractual/sublessor rights and/or the partnership could sue; the filing was made in good faith | Q-Tran argued Allied lacked a legal interest in the property at filing (title passed to Bishop in 2001) and thus lacked standing | Trial court: Allied lacked standing; case dismissed (subject to substitution question) |
| Whether substitution under § 52-109 should be permitted to add Bishop as plaintiff | Allied moved to substitute Bishop, asserting the suit was brought in the wrong party’s name through error and should be corrected | Q-Tran opposed substitution, arguing Allied’s delay and negligence barred relief under the governing standard | Trial court denied substitution, finding Allied’s negligence precluded a “mistake” under DiLieto/Kortner; Appellate Court reversed/remanded to apply corrected standard |
| Proper interpretation of “mistake” in § 52-109 | Allied relied on a remedial, ordinary meaning allowing substitution for errors even if negligent | Q-Tran relied on precedent requiring an absence of negligence (an honest, good-faith belief) to permit substitution | Appellate Court held the trial court misapplied the standard; following Fairfield Merrittview, “mistake” should be given its ordinary, broader meaning and does not require absence of negligence |
| Remedy after erroneous denial of substitution | Allied sought remand for a new hearing on substitution under the correct standard | Q-Tran likely sought dismissal to stand | Appellate Court ordered reversal and remand for the trial court to reconsider substitution consistent with Fairfield Merrittview |
Key Cases Cited
- Kortner v. Martise, 312 Conn. 1 (discussed prior definition of “mistake” as absence of negligence)
- DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (same)
- Fairfield Merrittview Ltd. Partnership v. Norwalk, 320 Conn. 535 (clarified that “mistake” in § 52-109 should be given its ordinary, broader meaning and does not require lack of negligence)