Opinion
CV166009099S
12-06-2017
Jennifer LACOSKE et al. v. FUN PROPERTIES, LLC et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Kathleen E. McNamara, Judge
The court having considered the motion and the objection therefrom in reaching the decision effected in this order.
General Statutes § 52-325(a) provides: " In any action in a court of this state ... (1) the plaintiff or his attorney, at the time the action is commenced or afterwards ... if the action is intended to affect real property, may cause to be recorded in the office of the town clerk of each town in which the property is situated a notice of lis pendens, containing the names of the parties, the nature and object of the action, the court to which it is returnable and the term, session or return day thereof, the date of the process and the description of the property ..." (Emphasis added.) " A notice of lis pendens is appropriate in any case where the outcome of the case will in some way, either directly or indirectly, affect the title to or an interest in real property ... As [General Statutes] § 52-325(a) provides, the purpose of [notice of lis pendens] is to bind any subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer as if he were made a party to the action described in the lis pendens. [A] notice of lis pendens ensures that the [litigant’s] claim cannot be defeated by a prejudgment transfer of the property." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Donenfeld v. Friedman, 79 Conn.App. 64, 67, 829 A.2d 107 (2003), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 930, 889 A.2d 817 (2005). Additionally, " [w]here a party to a pending action seeks only monetary damages that will not affect the title of the real estate owned by an adverse party, a notice of lis pendens is properly discharged as it no longer serves its purpose, which is to put potential buyers of the real estate and creditors of its owners on notice that the real estate may be subject to pending adverse interests that may affect the title or right to the property." Garcia v. Brooks Street Associates, 209 Conn. 15, 22, 546 A.2d 275 (1988).
In this case, the defendant has filed a motion to discharge lis pendens pursuant to General Statutes § 52-325d. Section 52-325d(1) provides for a motion to discharge a notice of lis pendens when the action the notice is filed with does not affect real property. Section 52-325(b) defines " intended to affect real property" to mean " (1) actions whose object and purpose is to determine the title or rights of the parties in, to, under or over some particular real property; (2) actions whose object and purpose is to establish or enforce previously acquired interests in real property; (3) actions which may affect in any manner the title to or interest in real property, notwithstanding the main purpose of the action may be other than to affect the title of such real property." See also Garcia v. Brooks Street Associates, supra, 209 Conn. 21-22.
General Statutes § 52-325d states: " In any action in which (1) a notice of lis pendens was recorded which is not intended to affect real property, or (2) the recorded notice does not contain the information required by subsection (a) of section 52-325 or section 46b-80, as the case may be, or (3) service of process or service of the certified copy of the notice of lis pendens was not made in accordance with statutory requirements, or (4) when, for any other reason, the recorded notice of lis pendens never became effective or has become of no effect, any interested party may file a motion requesting the court to discharge the recorded notice of lis pendens. If the court finds that such notice never became effective or has become of no effect, it shall issue its order declaring that such notice of lis pendens is invalid and discharged, and that the same does not constitute constructive notice. A certified copy of such order may be recorded in the land records of the town in which the notice of lis pendens was recorded."
" From the face of the statute it is clear that a notice of lis pendens is appropriate only where the pending action will in some way, either directly or indirectly, affect the title to or an interest in the real property ... Where ... a party to a pending action seeks only monetary damages that will not affect the title of the real estate owned by an adverse party, a notice of lis pendens is properly discharged ..." (Citation omitted.) Garcia v. Brooks Street Associates, supra, 209 Conn. 22.
" As noted in Stratton v. Ward, 39 Conn.Supp. 195, 197, (1983), the language of [§ 52-325(b)(3) ] is extremely broad." South Mill Village Assn. v. Still Hill Development Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-96-0563009-S (May 11, 1998, Lavine, J.) (22 Conn.L.Rptr. 154, 155). This broad language is consistently interpreted liberally. Manaker v. Manaker, 11 Conn.App. 653, 660-61, 528 A.2d 1170 (1987); First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership, 37 Conn.App. 698, 703, 657 A.2d 1110, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 902, 665 A.2d 901 (1995); see also Kelly v. Rainbow Development, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-07-5013231-S (November 24, 2008, Licari, J.). " Furthermore, lis pendens generally applies not only to those actions which involve the question of title, or a possessory interest, but also to litigation that does not seek to change the ownership of land in any way but does involve a determination of certain rights and liabilities incident to ownership. Thus lis pendens applies to actions which are brought to enforce any lien, charge, or encumbrance against real property. Further, it is not improper to file a lis pendens pursuant to an action seeking equitable relief with respect to the property that is the subject of the lis pendens." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelly v. Rainbow Development, Inc., supra, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-07-5013231-S (citing 54 C.J.S. 507-08, Lis Pendens § 10 (2005); see e.g., Coveland Farms, Inc. v. Perrotta, Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Docket No. CV-02-0099452-S (October 24, 2002, Robinson, J.) (holding that notice of lis pendens proper when plaintiff seeks multiple injunctions forcing defendant to alter land). As explained in Rainbow Development and illustrated in Coveland Farms, the claim of an equitable remedy involving the property, regardless of any monetary damages claimed, is sufficient to sustain a lis pendens. Kelly v. Rainbow Development, Inc., supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV-07-5013231-S; Coveland Farms, Inc. v. Perrotta, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV-02-0099452-S.
The lis pendens in the present matter involves an equitable remedy, specifically an injunction regarding the property at issue, and accordingly, the motion to discharge lis pendens is denied.