231 Conn.App. 568
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Nicole C. Jackson purchased real property in Fairfield from Joshua and Melinda Prince; Amy Zabetakis and John B. Devine acted as attorneys for the parties in the transaction.
- After discovering alleged defects with the property, Jackson filed a breach of contract suit against the Princes, Zabetakis, and Devine.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient or improper service of process.
- The trial court dismissed the action against all defendants, finding issues with how process was served and how the summons was completed.
- On appeal, Jackson challenged the dismissals, focusing on both the sufficiency of process/service and the need for an evidentiary hearing regarding factual disputes about service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misnaming "Joshua and Melinda Prince" as one | Listing both as "Joshua and Melinda Prince" was a harmless misnomer. | Treated as one defendant deprived court of jurisdiction; improper process. | Misnomer was harmless; sufficient to identify both. No confusion/prejudice. Court had jurisdiction. |
| Whether proper service was effected on Joshua and Melinda | Marshal attested to leaving two copies at abode; process was proper. | Only Melinda received in-hand service; no copy left for Joshua—insufficient service. | Melinda was properly served; factual dispute about Joshua's service required an evidentiary hearing. |
| Dismissal without an evidentiary hearing on factual issue | Factual dispute over service on Joshua required a hearing on jurisdiction. | Record (affidavits) showed Joshua not served; no need for hearing. | Trial court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing regarding service on Joshua. |
| Dismissal of action against Zabetakis/Devine for service | They evaded service by withholding abode addresses; service at office okay. | Service at law offices was improper under statute; no evidence of evasion. | No evasion shown; service required at home or in-hand. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343 (Ct. 1994) (discusses harmless misnomer and jurisdiction)
- Jimenez v. DeRosa, 109 Conn. App. 332 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008) (service of process, abode service, and burden of disproving personal jurisdiction)
- Bove v. Bove, 93 Conn. App. 76 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006) (standard for evasion of service and sufficiency of alternative service)