DocketNumber: No. CV 93 052 37 21
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5565
Judges: MULCAHY, J.
Filed Date: 5/25/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The complaint is dated March 16, 1993; the return of service is dated March 26, 1993. The return recites that the original writ, summons, notice and complaint were forwarded by certified mail to Lloyd M. Napier at 28 Mapleview Avenue, Longmeadow, Mass. Further, that also on 3/26/93, the process server made due and legal service on the named defendant (Napier) by leaving a true and attested copy of the writ, summons, notice, and complaint with the Connecticut Commissioner of Motor Vehicles at least twelve days before the session of the court to which the writ was returnable, and, that the said Connecticut Commissioner of Motor Vehicles is the duly authorized agent and attorney for the named defendant. A supplemental return indicates that on 3/27/93 the certified return receipt was received back from the U.S. Postal Service; a copy of the green receipt card, annexed to said return, bears the purported signature of Lloyd M. Napier.
Counsel for the defendant filed an appearance on October 4, 1993. Thereafter, motions were filed by counsel on behalf of defendant Napier. On January 3, 1994 the pleadings were closed by the filing of defendant's answer. On January 17, CT Page 5566 1994 counsel filed this motion to dismiss, with supporting memorandum of law, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the named defendant, Napier, was deceased on the date of the commencement of this action. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum of law in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss.
A motion to dismiss is the appropriate pleading through which to raise (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (3) improper venue, (4) insufficiency of process, and (5) insufficiency of service of process. Conn. Prac. Bk. Section 143; see also:Upson v. State,
Connecticut General Statutes Section
The death of such nonresident, whether before or after the commencement of a civil action, shall not operate to revoke the appointment by the nonresident of the commissioner of motor vehicles as his attorney for service of process. If the process is served upon the commissioner of motor vehicles and a true and attested copy thereof is sent to the administrator, executor or other legal representative of the deceased nonresident in accordance with the provisions of this section, the service shall have the same validity as if made upon the administrator, executor of legal representative personally. (Emphasis added).
The issue, properly framed, in my view, is whether defective service of process resulting from noncompliance with the second sentence of Subsection (b) deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction.1 As plaintiff maintains, defects relating to service of process do not generally deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction; our Supreme Court has stated: "[o]ur precedents make it abundantly clear that, except in the special circumstances of administrative appeals, defects in process do not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction." Bridgeport v. Debek, supra at p. 179. Rather, defects in process pertain to issues of jurisdiction over theperson: "[f]acts showing the service of process in time, form, and manner sufficient to satisfy the requirements of mandatory statutes . . . are essential to jurisdiction over the person." (Emphasis in original). Id. at p. 179-80. In the present case, the asserted noncompliance with certain of the requirements of General Statutes Section
As stated, personal jurisdiction may exist by way of consent or waiver. Bridgeport v. Debek, supra at p. 180. Prac. Bk. Section 144 states: "Any claim of lack of jurisdiction over the person . . . or insufficiency of process or insufficiency of services of process is waived if not raised by a motion to dismiss filed in the sequence provided in Sections 112 and 113 and within the time provided by Section 142."2 Here, defendant appeared through counsel and filed an answer; this motion to dismiss succeeded in time the answer, and was not filed within thirty days of counsel's appearance, as required by Prac. Bk. Section 142. Accordingly, since the claim presented on this motion is one relating to jurisdiction over the person, and not subject matter jurisdiction, it has been untimely raised, and is waived under the provisions of Section 144.
For the reasons stated, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby Denied.
Mulcahy, J.