DocketNumber: No. FA 99-630062
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11233, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 469
Judges: DEVINE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/15/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The summons and order for hearing and notice to defendant set the first court date on March 13, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. Neither the plaintiff or the defendant appeared on said date and the case was continued to May 22, 2000. Both parties failed to appear on May 22, 2000 with the Magistrate ordering a continuance on said date to July 17, 2000. The defendant Sherron Johnson filed an appearance (dated May 16, 2000) with the Superior Court Clerk's Office on June 1, 2000. Said appearance reflects and address for the defendant of 101 Harold Street, Hartford, Connecticut.
On July 17, 2000 neither the plaintiff or defendant appeared. The DSS sought default orders payable to the State in that the petitioner was a recipient of. public assistance. The Magistrate Court denied the DSS request and dismissed the matter on the basis that . . . "There is a conflict in the record as to where she resides. She says she resides at 101 Harold Street. So, it's not being dismissed because of lack of postal." Transcript p. 3, lines 17-19.
DSS has appealed the decision of the Family Support Magistrate dismissing the DSS petition. This appeal is brought pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section
The court has reviewed the memorandum of law submitted by DSS. The court hereby concludes that the Magistrate was in error for dismissing said complaint. The DSS is authorized to serve process on the abode of a defendant pursuant to the provisions of Section
It is evident by the record that the respondent has not challenged the jurisdiction of this court by way of a motion to dismiss. The mere fact of a filing of an appearance by the defendant with an address different than the address where abode service was effectuated is not a sufficient legal basis for the Magistrate to dismiss the case.
The court hereby concludes that the Magistrate erred as a matter of law in dismissing said complaint. The court reverses the decision of the Magistrate and remands this case with direction to proceed upon the complaint. The court further notes the necessity to advise the defendant of the date, time and place of said hearing at the address listed on his appearance to comply with the constitutional requirement of notice and opportunity be heard.
James J. Devine, J.