DocketNumber: No. 51 32 04
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1119, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 367
Judges: TELLER, J.
Filed Date: 1/14/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim on August 27, 1990. In his counterclaim, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff did not exercise "reasonable judgment" in disposing of the collateral securing the debt. As a result of the plaintiff's actions, the defendant further alleges, he has suffered loss and the deficiency claimed in the plaintiff's complaint.
The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that "46 U.S.C. § 911 et. seq. provides for exclusive federal admiralty court jurisdiction over this matter." Both parties filed memoranda of law and were heard.
A motion to dismiss tests the jurisdiction of the court. Practice Book 145.
The defendant argues that the federal admiralty court has exclusive jurisdiction of this action pursuant to the Ship Mortgage Act 46 U.S.C. § 951 and 954(a), citing NAT G. Harrison Overseas Corp. v. American Barge Sun Coaster,
The admiralty jurisdiction of the federal court is exclusive under
The defendant's reliance of NAT G. Harrison Overseas Corp. v. American Barge Sun Coaster, supra, is misplaced as it stands only for the proposition that federal law must be applied to actions for deficiency judgments on preferred ship mortgages. Choice of law is irrelevant to this court's jurisdiction as state courts are competent to determine issues of maritime law, at least where the proceedings are in personam. See Reedsburg Bank v. Apollo, supra.
As state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over actions seeking a deficiency judgment on a preferred ship mortgage, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
TELLER, J.