Opinion
FSTCV175016653S
08-04-2017
Paul J. Scholtes v. Town of Greenwich
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS (#102.00)
EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
This case comes to this court as a motion to dismiss. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss asserts that the court has no jurisdiction over the matter because the Citation contained within the original Application was not signed by a court officer authorizing a proper officer to make services of process. However, the lack of a signature by a court officer on the Citation annexed to a properly executed and served Application for Relief is merely a defect in the text, not an irregularity in the service of process. A defect in the text constitutes a circumstantial defect and therefore does not deprive this Court of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
Connecticut General Statutes § 52-123 provides " No writ, pleading, judgment or any kind of proceeding in court or course of justice shall be abated, suspended, set aside or reversed for any kind of circumstantial errors, mistakes or defects, if the person and the cause may be rightly understood and intended by the court." See Sargent v. Capital Airlines, Inc., 96 Conn.App. 320, 901 A.2d 55 (2006).
In this case, the lack of a signature on a Citation is merely a circumstantial defect. Plaintiff's Application and the appended Citation did include the necessary information directing proper service by a State Marshal, which service was then perfected via in hand delivery.
Upon learning about the circumstantial defect, Plaintiff, at the time acting pro se, caused an Amended Application with a properly executed Citation to be served upon Defendant by a proper officer. Pleading (#104).
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
SO ORDERED.