Opinion
NNHCV195046263S
08-07-2019
Estate of Charlie J. Smith, Heirs and Beneficiaries et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Young, Robert E., J.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Robert E. Young, Judge
This is an action purporting to be a lockout complaint and application for temporary injunction. The action is brought by two entities: "Estate of Charlie J. Smith, Heirs and Beneficiaries" and "Tenants." The motion for temporary injunction was heard by the court on July 15, 2019.
Sua sponte, the court considers whether these plaintiffs are legal entities with standing to pursue a cause of action, providing subject matter jurisdiction to the court. The issue of standing implicates the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The court is obligated to address issues of subject matter jurisdiction. Practice Book § 10-33. "[T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction, because it addresses the basic competency of the court, can be raised by any of the parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Webster Bank v. Zak, 259 Conn. 766, 774, 792 A.2d 66 (2002). "Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power [of the court] to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong ... In other words, [s]ubject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of a court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it ... A court does not truly lack subject matter jurisdiction if it has competence to entertain the action before it ... It is well established that, in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) New England Pipe Corp. v. Northeast Corridor Foundation, 271 Conn. 329, 334-35, 857 A.2d 348 (2004).
"The requirement of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by any party and can be raised at any stage in the proceedings ... Whenever the absence of jurisdiction is brought to the notice of the court or tribunal, cognizance of it must be taken and the matter passed upon before it can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) D’Attilo v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 329 Conn. 624, 635, 188 A.3d 727 (2018).
The court first addresses the issue of whether the plaintiff "Estate of Charlie J. Smith" has standing to pursue an action. "It is well established that an estate is not a legal representative. It is incapable of bringing a claim ... 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 ... Isaac v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 3 Conn.App. 598, 600, 490 A.2d 1024, cert. denied, 196 Conn. 807, 494 A.2d 904 (1985); see Ellis v. Cohen, 118 Conn.App. 211, 215-16, 982 A.2d 1130 (2009) (holding that estate is not legal entity and that wrongful death action can be maintained on behalf of estate only by executor or administrator); Nanni v. Dino Corp., 117 Conn.App. 61, 70 n.6, 978 A.2d 531 (2009) ([i]n Connecticut, a decedent’s estate is not a distinct legal entity); see also 1 R. Dupont, Connecticut Civil Practice (2015-2016) § 10-33.1, pp. 10-67 through 10-68 ([a] motion to dismiss [will be] sustained ... if [an] action [is] commenced simply in the name of the decedent’s estate, because an estate is not a legal entity and no wrongful death action may be commenced except in the name of the executor or administrator of the estate)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Estate of Rock v. University of Connecticut, 323 Conn. 26, 32, 144 A.3d 420 (2016). "Although case law is not replete with examples of entirely obvious lack of subject matter jurisdiction decisions, this court offers the following as entirely obvious examples: a decedent’s estate is not a proper or legal entity to commence a lawsuit as it has no standing and thus the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tarzia, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. CV-09-6001209-S (January 9, 2017, Tierney, J.T.R.). As the plaintiff "Estate of Charlie J. Smith" does not have standing to pursue this action, the action is dismissed as to this plaintiff.
The court next addresses whether unspecified "heirs and beneficiaries" have standing to pursue an action. "[A]s a general rule, [t]he proper suit, upon a cause of action arising in favor of ... the decedent during [his or her] lifetime, is in the name of the fiduciary rather than of the heirs or other beneficiaries of the estate ... Actions designed to recover personalty belonging to the estate or for its use, conversion, or injury are brought by the fiduciary rather than by the beneficiaries. G. Wilhelm et al., Settlement of Estates in Connecticut (3d Ed. 2014) § § 8:288 and 8:289, pp. 8-105 and 8-106; see also Kosiorek v. Smigelski, 138 Conn.App. 695, 706, 54 A.3d 564 (2012) ([i]t is axiomatic that probate fiduciaries may commence legal action in their representative capacity), cert. denied, 308 Conn. 901, 60 A.3d 287 (2013); Naier v. Beckenstein, 131 Conn.App. 638, 653 n.13, 27 A.3d 104 ([i]t is of course true that a representative of an estate may pursue a cause of action ... to pursue claims of the deceased), cert. denied, 303 Conn. 910, 32 A.3d 963 (2011); Silver v. Holtman, 114 Conn.App. 438, 443, 970 A.2d 740 (2009) (executrix has standing in her representative capacity to assert the rights of the estate and was the only person who has standing to bring these claims because of her representative capacity); 31 Am.Jur.2d 746, Executors and Administrators § 1093 (2012) (the exclusive right to bring actions in behalf of an estate ... is in the legal representative of the estate; the heirs have no standing to maintain such an action [footnote omitted]); 26B C.J.S. 417, Descent and Distribution § 107 (2011) ([w]here a personal representative has been appointed for an estate, an individual heir generally does not have the right to pursue an action for [the] benefit of the estate unless the personal representative fails to act on the claim [footnote omitted])." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Geremia v. Geremia, 159 Conn.App. 751, 781-82, 125 A.3d 549 (2015). In the absence of an appointed representative of the unspecified "heirs and beneficiaries" such plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action and it is dismissed as to these plaintiffs.
Finally, the court considers whether unspecified "tenants" have standing to pursue an action. "Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion. One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he [or she] has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject matter of the controversy ... [If] a party is found to lack standing, the court is consequently without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the cause." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Strong, 149 Conn.App. 384, 397-98, 89 A.3d 392, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 923, 94 A.3d 1202 (2014).
"Standing focuses on whether a party is a proper party to request adjudication of the issues, rather than on the substantive rights of the aggrieved parties." Investors Mortgage Co. v. Rodia, 31 Conn.App. 476, 479, 625 A.2d 833 (1993). "[S]tanding does not hinge on whether the plaintiff will ultimately be entitled to obtain relief on the merits of an action, but on whether he is entitled to seek the relief." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Hocap Corp., 71 Conn.App. 632, 638, 803 A.2d 402 (2002). "Standing is established by showing that the party claiming it is authorized by statute to bring suit or is classically aggrieved ... The fundamental test for determining aggrievement encompasses a well-settled twofold determination: first, the party claiming aggrievement must successfully demonstrate a specific, personal and legal interest in [the subject matter of the challenged action] ... Second, the party claiming aggrievement must successfully establish that this specific personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the [challenged action] ... Aggrievement is established if there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest ... has been adversely affected." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
"[T]he plaintiff ultimately bears the burden of establishing standing." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Strong, supra, 149 Conn. 398. Without proper identification of the relevant party-plaintiff, the court cannot ascertain whether the unspecified tenants have met their burden of establishing standing to bring the action. The action is dismissed as to the "tenants" plaintiffs.
ORDER
The action is dismissed.