Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)

Citation: Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
Parent Document: Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2013-07-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7915215/pollansky-v-pollansky/ ↗

Full Text

986 chars

We begin by setting forth the “standard of reviewing challenges to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a summary process action on the basis of a defect in the notice to quit. Before the [trial] court can entertain *192a summary process action and evict [an occupant], the owner of the land must previously have served the [occupant] with notice to quit. ... As a condition precedent to a summary process action, proper notice to quit [pursuant to § 47a-23] is a jurisdictional necessity. . . . This court’s review of the trial court’s determination as to whether the notice to quit served by the plaintiff effectively conferred subject matter jurisdiction is plenary.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381, 388, 973 A.2d 1229 (2009). Furthermore, our review of the defendants’ argument based on the statutory construction of § 47a-23 (a) (3) is plenary. See Spears v. Garcia, 263 Conn. 22, 27, 818 A.2d 37 (2003).

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text