137 Conn. App. 514
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Greco Construction sought foreclosure of a $6,270 mechanic’s lien on defendants’ property for renovation work performed.
- Trial in Aug 2010 before an attorney trial referee resulted in a recommended judgment for plaintiff for $6,270 plus costs.
- Plaintiff moved to accept the referee’s report and sought to amend pleadings to correct misnomers to “Brian Greco d/b/a Greco Construction.”
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing misnaming as “Greco Construction” deprived the court of jurisdiction.
- Court granted dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, applying § 52-123 and the trade-name rule, and held the misnomer could not be cured to confer jurisdiction.
- This appeal followed, with the court affirming the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misnomer of plaintiff deprives jurisdiction. | Greco Construction misnomer is curable under § 52-123. | Greco Construction is a trade name, not a legal entity; no jurisdiction. | Yes; lack of jurisdiction; misnomer cannot confer jurisdiction. |
| Whether a trade name lacks legal existence for subject matter jurisdiction under Pagano. | Trade name should not defeat jurisdiction. | Trade name has no separate legal existence; cannot confer jurisdiction. | Yes; trade name cannot confer jurisdiction. |
| Whether Dyck O’Neal and related distinctions apply to cure of misnomer in this case. | Dyck O’Neal supports cure of misnomer. | America’s Wholesale Lender controls; Dyck O’Neal is distinguishable. | Rejected; not applicable; misnomer not curable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- America’s Wholesale Lender v. Pagano, 87 Conn. App. 474 (Conn. App. 2005) (trade-name lack of separate legal existence defeats jurisdiction; misnomer cannot cure)
- Dyck O’Neal, Inc. v. Wynne, 56 Conn. App. 161 (Conn. App. 1999) (distinguishable; not controlling for plaintiff misnaming via trade name)
- Andover Ltd. Partnership I v. Board of Tax Review, 232 Conn. 392 (Conn. 1995) (three-factor test for determining misnomer as circumstantial defect under § 52-123)