Estate of Hyman Shepatin v. Estate of Frank L. Collins, Jr. et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS, No. 106

FACTS

On June 10, 2010, the plaintiff, Estate of Hyman Shepatin, filed a summons and four-count complaint against the defendants, Estate of Frank L. Collins, Jr. and Robert Shutsky, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit and estoppel.   On October 4, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the alternative grounds that the plaintiff lacks standing, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction and the plaintiff's claim is not ripe for adjudication.   The motion is accompanied by a memorandum of law.   On November 5, 2010, the plaintiff filed an objection to the defendants' motion and a memorandum of law in support of its objection.   Because the court has determined for reasons stated herein that the first ground asserted by the defendants is sufficient for finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this opinion will be limited to the sole issue of whether the plaintiff has standing.

DISCUSSION

“A motion to dismiss ․ properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court ․ A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Caruso v. Bridgeport, 285 Conn. 618, 627, 941 A.2d 266 (2008).  “The issue of standing implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  May v. Coffey, 291 Conn. 106, 113, 967 A.2d 495 (2009).  “The proper procedural vehicle for disputing a party's standing is a motion to dismiss.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  D'Eramo v. Smith, 273 Conn. 610, 615 n.6, 872 A.2d 408 (2005).  “[A] subject matter jurisdictional defect may not be waived ․ [or jurisdiction] conferred by the parties, explicitly or implicitly ․ [T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction ․ once raised, either by a party or by the court itself ․ must be answered before the court may decide the case.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277, 283, 914 A.2d 996 (2007).

Here, the defendants argue that the plaintiff lacks standing because an estate is not a legal entity and does not have the legal capacity to sue.   In response, the plaintiff counters that it is a legal entity.   In the alternative, the plaintiff has requested leave of court to amend the complaint or to substitute the executor as party plaintiff.

“It is elemental that in order to confer jurisdiction on the court the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is he or it must be a person in law or a legal entity with legal capacity to sue ․ An estate is not a legal entity.   It is neither a natural nor artificial person, but is merely a name to indicate the sum total of the assets and liabilities of the decedent or incompetent ․ Not having a legal existence, it can neither sue nor be sued.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Isaac v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 3 Conn.App. 598, 600, 400 A.2d 1024, cert. denied, 196 Conn. 807, 494 A.2d 904 (1985).   The Appellate Court has recently affirmed this proposition.  “An estate is not a legal entity ․ It can neither sue nor be sued.”  (Citation omitted.)  Ellis v. Cohen, 118 Conn.App. 211, 215, 982 A.2d 1130 (2009).

The sole plaintiff in the present case is the Estate of Hyman Shepatin.   It is clear from appellate authority that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action.  “In the absence of standing the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine the merits of the case.”  Sadloski v. Manchester, 228 Conn. 79, 83, 634 A.2d 888 (1993).   Therefore, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.

In Issac v. Mount Sinai Hospital, supra, 3 Conn.App. 600, the estate plaintiff also attempted to substitute the correct representative of the estate for the estate itself.   The Appellate Court held that the trial court correctly denied the substitution because the legal action, brought by a plaintiff without the legal capacity to sue, is a nullity and therefore cannot be cured by way of amendment or substitution.  Id., 602.   Therefore, the complaint in this case cannot be saved by amendment or substitution.

Because the court has concluded that it is without subject matter jurisdiction based on the first ground asserted in the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court need not address the remaining two grounds.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby grants the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Martin, J.

Martin, Robert A., J.