Harborside Connecticut Ltd. Partnership v. Witte
154 A.3d 1082
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff health-care provider alleges it billed insurer for services to a decedent; insurer paid $34,200 to the decedent’s widow (defendant), who initially issued a check that bounced and thereafter refused to pay the plaintiff.
- Plaintiff sued the widow in Superior Court, asserting conversion (count one) and unjust enrichment (count two) to recover the $34,200 she allegedly retained.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the trial court construed the complaint as a collection action against the decedent’s estate and dismissed, reasoning such claims belong in Probate Court.
- The majority on review affirmed that dismissal; the authoring judge dissents, arguing the trial court misread and improperly recharacterized the complaint.
- The dissent emphasizes the complaint alleges a claim against a third party who wrongfully retained funds, not a claim against the decedent or his estate, and thus is not within Probate Court jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the claim is effectively against the decedent/estate | Complaint seeks recovery from the widow who received and retained funds belonging to plaintiff; claim is against a third party, not the estate | The claim is a collection action for services rendered to the decedent and thus must be brought against the estate in Probate Court | Trial court and majority treated it as an estate/Probate matter and dismissed; dissent would reverse and remand, finding Superior Court jurisdiction over a third-party conversion/unjust enrichment claim |
| Whether the trial court properly construed the complaint on a motion to dismiss | Complaint should be read broadly, facts construed in plaintiff’s favor; alleges conversion and unjust enrichment against defendant | Court recharacterized the pleadings as a collection claim against the decedent’s estate | Dissent finds the trial court misread and failed to indulge presumptions favoring jurisdiction; majority upheld dismissal |
| Proper procedural vehicle to challenge pleading sufficiency | If defendant thinks claims are insufficient, she should move to strike under Practice Book §10-39 | Defendant used motion to dismiss for jurisdictional defect instead | Dissent notes motion to dismiss was improperly used to oust the claim on jurisdictional grounds rather than movant seeking a motion to strike |
| Whether plaintiff was required to create an estate in Probate Court before pursuing recovery from the widow | No; requiring creation of an estate when funds are held by a third party is unnecessary and unjust | Trial court implied plaintiff must file in Probate and pursue estate creation to reach the funds | Dissent criticizes this multi-step requirement as a ‘‘fool’s errand’’ and contrary to justice; majority upheld Probate route |
Key Cases Cited
- Stotler v. Dept. of Transportation, 142 Conn. App. 832 (Conn. App.) (courts must construe pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and indulge presumptions in favor of jurisdiction)
- Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 728 (Conn.) (same principle requiring favorable construction of facts toward plaintiff)
- Slattery v. Woodin, 90 Conn. 48 (Conn.) (distinguishes probate matters and addresses rights on appeal from Probate Court)