DocketNumber: No. 64757
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6057
Judges: AUSTIN, J.
Filed Date: 6/22/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
1. Whether the court should grant the defendants' motion to dismiss because the writ bears an improper return date.
2. Whether the court should grant the defendants' motion to dismiss because the writ, summons and complaint were returned to court fewer than six days before the return date.
3. Whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' motion to allow the plaintiffs to serve an amended writ, summons and complaint.
FACTS
The following facts appear on the face of the writ and summons form and the sheriff's return. The plaintiffs, Jonathan D. Forsythe and Thelma L. Forsythe, commenced this action by causing process to be served on the defendants, Frank W. DiMarco, Mary A. DiMarco, Connecticut Realty Associates of Hebron, Inc. and William Raveis Real Estate, Inc, between January 17, 1992, and January 27, 1992. The return date is Friday, February 21, 1992.1 The complaint was filed in court on February 18, 1992.
DISCUSSION
"Practice Book Sec. 143 provides in relevant part: `The motion to dismiss shall be used to assert (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. . . .'" Southport Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Foley,
It is beyond question that when a plaintiff fails to make the return date a Tuesday in conformance with General Statutes Sec.
In the present case, however, the plaintiffs have nothing to amend because the plaintiffs failed to return the writ, summons and complaint to court at least six days before the return date in accordance with General Statutes Sec.
Because the violation of General Statutes Sec.
CONCLUSION
The court grants the motion to dismiss because the writ, summons and complaint were not returned at least six days before the return date in conformance with General Statutes Sec.
AUSTIN, J.
Judgment Entered in Accordance with Foregoing Memorandum of Decision.
Michael Kokoszka, Chief Clerk