Merrill v. NRT New England, Inc.
126 Conn. App. 314
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Merrill purchased a house alleged to be misrepresented as a corner lot; she filed breach, misrepresentation, and UTSA claims against NRT entities and two individuals.
- Defendants were served with summons and complaint dated June 29, 2008, return date July 22, 2008; counsel later sought revision.
- Plaintiff amended the documents to change the return date to August 26, 2008 due to marshal service timing, invoking §52-46a, §52-72, and Practice Book §10-59.
- Defendants moved to dismiss October 24, 2008 alleging insufficient service and lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiff objected asserting proper service and waiver.
- Trial court granted dismissal February 18, 2009, ruling there was no valid return of the June 29, 2008 summons and complaint; plaintiff appealed.
- Court reversed, held amendment to return date did not deprive subject matter jurisdiction and personal-jurisdiction defect was waived by defendants’ late challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subject matter jurisdiction was preserved despite amended return date | Merrill amended return date; no deprivation of jurisdiction | Defendants lacked service and jurisdiction due to defective process | Subject matter jurisdiction preserved; amendment remedied defect, not jurisdictional. |
| Whether lack of personal jurisdiction was waived by defendants' motion timing | Defendants waived lack of personal jurisdiction by timely filing responsive motion | Motion filed after 30-day window; waiver applies | Waiver did not apply on personal jurisdiction grounds; however, the court found waiver under timing. |
| Whether service of process on defendants was proper | Documents served; returns reflect service | Defendants were not served with the filed documents | Service in record supported; defect did not deprive subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coppola v. Coppola, 243 Conn. 657 (1998) (amendment of defective process allowed to cure return-date defects to meet remedial statutes)
- Concept Associates, Ltd. v. Board of Tax Review, 229 Conn. 618 (1994) (return-date defect considered under remedial interpretation)
- Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10 (2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction presumed; service defects implicate personal jurisdiction)
- Pitchell v. Hartford, 247 Conn. 422 (1999) (waiver of lack of jurisdiction over person if not raised within 30 days of appearance)