Brenda I. Rodriguez v. Andrew Czarkosky et al. (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The court has reconsidered its prior decision in denying the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment, # 103.   A careful review of Isaac v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 3 Conn.App. 598, 490 A.2d 1024 (1985), and § 47-31 C.G.S., upon which the court relied at that time indicate that the prior decision needs to be reversed.

In the present case the plaintiff brings an action for quiet title pursuant to General Statutes § 47-31.  General Statutes § 47-31(b) provides in relevant part:  “In any such action the plaintiff may join as defendants any unknown person or persons who claim or may claim any rights, title, estate or interest in or lien or encumbrance on the property described in the complaint, adverse to that of the plaintiff, whether the claim or possible claim be vested or contingent ․ If in the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that there are or that there may be persons who have or may have some right, title, estate or interest in or lien or encumbrance on the real or personal property but the persons cannot be located or are unknown to the plaintiff, or both, and describes the actual or possible estate or interest of such person or persons, and how derived, so far as may be known to him from a reasonable search of the available land records or otherwise, he may join as defendants all unknown persons who may have made any such claim by stating in the summons, after setting forth the names of known claimants, the words, “and all unknown persons, claiming or who may claim any rights, title, interest or estate in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property described in this complaint, adverse to the plaintiff, whether such claim or possible claim be vested or contingent”, and it shall not be necessary to set forth therein any further description of the unknown person or persons.   If, there are no known claimants, or possible claimants, to the property described in the complaint, the action shall be deemed to be maintained against all unknown persons claiming or who may claim any rights, title, estate, or interest, or lien or encumbrances upon the real or personal property described in the complaint, adverse to that of the plaintiff, whether the claim be vested or contingent, and the action may be prosecuted to judgment in the same manner and with like effect as though there had been known claimants or possible claimants designated as party defendants.”

On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint, listing the following as defendants:  “The heirs of Andrew Czarkosky and all unknown persons, claiming or who may claim any rights, title, interest or estate in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property described in this complaint, adverse to the plaintiff, whether such claim or possible claim be vested or contingent.”  (Summons, p. 1.)

The court, in Isaac v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 3 Conn.App. 598, 490 A.2d 1024 (1985), stated that:  “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 an existence, it can neither sue nor be sued.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Id., 600.  General Statutes § 47-31, however, provides specifically for the language that the plaintiff used in the present case.¹  Section 47-31(b) does not require that a known plaintiff be named, providing that “[i]f, there are no known claimants, or possible claimants, to the property described in the complaint, the action shall be deemed to be maintained against all unknown persons ․” and that “it shall not be necessary to set forth therein any further description of the unknown person or persons.”   The statute thus does not require any known person to be named.

The plaintiff in the present case added the phrase “[t]he heirs of Andrew Czarkosky” to what is required by the statute if there are no known claimants or possible claimants.   The placement of this phrase conforms to the format used when there are some known and some unknown claimants or possible claimants.   The words used by the plaintiff, however, do not actually name any known claimants or possible claimants.   This additional phrase then seems to just further describe unknown claimants or possible claimants.   The statute states that “it shall not be necessary to set forth ․ any further description of the unknown person or persons,” and therefore the words “[t]he heirs of Andrew Czarkosky” are superfluous.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not suing a non-entity, the estate of Andrew Czarkosky, or some undetermined possible heirs, as would be impermissible following the logic of the Appellate Court in Isaac, but rather the plaintiff brought this action for quiet title pursuant to General Statutes § 47-31, which specifically allows, and provides a process for, bringing a complaint against unknown claimants or possible claimants in this action.

The court's prior ruling DENYING the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment (# 103), dated February 20, 2009, is hereby VACATED and the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Articulation, having been granted (# 104) March 6, 2009, it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment (# 103) is now GRANTED.

Riley, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. General Statutes § 47-31(b) states in relevant part that the plaintiff may “join as defendants all unknown persons who may have made any such claim by stating in the summons, after setting forth the names of known claimants, the words, ‘and all unknown persons, claiming or who may claim any rights, title, interest or estate in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property described in this complaint, adverse to the plaintiff, whether such claim or possible claim be vested or contingent’, and it shall not be necessary to set forth therein any further description of the unknown person or persons.”.  FN1. General Statutes § 47-31(b) states in relevant part that the plaintiff may “join as defendants all unknown persons who may have made any such claim by stating in the summons, after setting forth the names of known claimants, the words, ‘and all unknown persons, claiming or who may claim any rights, title, interest or estate in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property described in this complaint, adverse to the plaintiff, whether such claim or possible claim be vested or contingent’, and it shall not be necessary to set forth therein any further description of the unknown person or persons.”

Riley, Michael E., J.