DocketNumber: No. FA-99-062795
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3835
Judges: DEVINE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/28/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On the initial court date of May 11, 1999, the mother and alleged defendant father did not appear. On June 2, 1999 the mother appeared but could not provide information concerning a military affidavit required by the court. On August 10, 1999, a hearing commenced and the magistrate continued the matter for additional service on the defendant in Jamaica. The JD-FM-170 hearing form of August 10, 1999 signed by the magistrate indicates an additional order "amended service by sheriff". This order does not appear in the transcript of the hearing.
The matter was next continued to September 28, 1999, when both the plaintiff and the defendant were not present. The matter was then continued to November 9, 1999, when the magistrate summarily dismissed the matter for insufficient service of process. The State of Connecticut now appeals the decision of the magistrate pursuant to §
Service or process in a civil action may be made at the usual place of abode of a defendant, and a court can acquire in CT Page 3836 personam jurisdiction over a defendant who has been served at his usual place of abode within the state. General Statutes §
Whether a particular place is the usual place of abode of a defendant is a question of fact. Although the sheriffs return is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, it may be contradicted and facts may be introduced to show otherwise.Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc.,
The transcript of the hearing on August 10, 1999 is devoid of any reference to the requirement of the plaintiff to file an amended return of service. Furthermore, the magistrate simply assumed that service was invalid and dismissed the case without making factual findings that the defendant, Roy Richards, was deprived of notice and opportunity to be heard. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the process served at the defendant's place of abode was in any way misdirected, mishandled or destroyed by his mother, who was a resident of the second floor apartment according to the record. The Court hereby finds that the magistrate exceeded his authority in dismissing the case.
The judgment of the magistrate dismissing the case is reversed and the case is remanded to the magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.
Devine, J.