2004 Ct. Sup. 1387
No. CV 02-0173802 SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury
February 2, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
MATASAVAGE, JUDGE.
The plaintiff, Linda Gigilo, has moved for reconsideration and articulation of this court’s order dismissing this action on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court dismissed the matter because at the time of the service of the complaint, the defendant had already passed away. At oral argument, the court and counsel wrestled with the distinction as to whether subject matter or personal jurisdiction is implicated given this situation.
The plaintiff cites the recent case of Connecticut Light and Power v. St. John, 80 Conn. App. 767 (2004). In light of the decision, it is apparent that failure of service implicates personal, not subject matter jurisdiction. That distinction is important in this case, as the defendant had filed a request to revise, and waived defects in service, see Practice Book § 10-32.
The court cited in the original decision O’leary v. Waterbury Title Co., 117 Conn. 39, 47 (1933), whereby a “judgment in an action begun and prosecuted against a defendant who is dead when it was begun, is null and void and may be attacked collaterally as well as directly.” The court cannot find any decision overruling O’leary. “Void” is defined as “[o]f no legal effect; null . . . Whenever technically accurate is required, void can be properly applied only to those provisions that are of no effect whatsoever — those that are an absolute nullity . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed. 1999).
In examining subject matter or personal jurisdiction, given the facts of this case, there is a difference without a meaningful distinction. Here, the defendant was dead at the time of the attempted service of process. The lawsuit is void, or of no legal effect. CT Page 1388
The motion to dismiss is granted.
MATASAVAGE, JUDGE.