§

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Retirement Mgt. Group

226 Conn. 908 (Conn. 1993)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Retirement Mgt. Group

8 Citing cases

  1. Ciarleglio v. Martin

    AC 45535 (Conn. App. Ct. Sep. 24, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Although there is no clear precedent establishing that an annulment action, initiated prior to the death of a party, can proceed under § 52599, we note that, as a general principle, ''[o]ur rules of practice . . . permit the substitution of parties as the interests of justice require.'' Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Retirement Management Group, Inc., 31 Conn.App. 80, 84, 623 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 226 Conn. 908, 625 A.2d 1378 (1993); see also General Statutes §§ 52107, 52-108 and 52-109; Practice Book §§ 9-18 and 9-19. The rules permitting the substitution of parties as the interests of justice require ''are to be construed so as to alter the harsh and inefficient result that attached to the mispleading of parties at common law.''

  2. Byrne v. Avery Ctr. For Obstetrics & Gynecology

    212 Conn. App. 339 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Retirement Management Group, Inc ., 31 Conn. App. 80, 84–85, 623 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 226 Conn. 908, 625 A.2d 1378 (1993). At the July 8, 2019 hearing, the defendant began its opposition to the plaintiff's motion for offer of judgment interest by arguing that the offer of judgment was invalid because the trustee was not a party to the case when it was filed.

  3. Goshen Mortg. v. Androulidakis

    205 Conn. App. 15 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    "Our rules of practice ... permit the substitution of parties as the interests of justice require." Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Retirement Management Group, Inc. , 31 Conn. App. 80, 84, 623 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 226 Conn. 908, 625 A.2d 1378 (1993). "As long as [the] defendant is fully apprised of a claim arising from specified conduct and has prepared to defend the action, his ability to protect himself will not be prejudicially affected if a new plaintiff is added."

  4. Hudson City Sav. Bank v. Hellman

    196 Conn. App. 836 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Granting substitution under § 9-16 after merger involving plaintiff as merger would have no substantive effect on proceedings

    ‘‘Our rules of practice ... permit the substitution of parties as the interests of justice require.’’ Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Retirement Management Group, Inc. , 31 Conn. App. 80, 84, 623 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 226 Conn. 908, 625 A.2d 1378 (1993). ‘‘As long as [the] defendant is fully apprised of a claim arising from specified conduct and has prepared to defend the action, his ability to protect himself will not be prejudicially affected if a new plaintiff is added ....’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

  5. Youngman v. Schiavone

    AC36207 (Conn. App. Ct. May. 5, 2015)

    In conclusion, I see no relevant distinction in these cases to warrant two different outcomes. Finally, the trial court's analysis cannot be reconciled with the established principle, enunciated in Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Retirement Management Group, Inc., 31 Conn. App. 80, 84, 623 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 226 Conn. 908, 625 A.2d 1378 (1993), that "[o]ur rules of practice . . . permit the substitution of parties as the interests of justice require." (Emphasis added.)

  6. Youngman v. Schiavone

    157 Conn. App. 55 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 15 times
    Affirming judgment dismissing action after denying motion to substitute on ground that plaintiffs did not show they filed action in name of wrong person through mistake, as that term is defined in DiLieto

    In conclusion, I see no relevant distinction in these cases to warrant two different outcomes. Finally, the trial court's analysis cannot be reconciled with the established principle, enunciated in Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Retirement Management Group, Inc., 31 Conn.App. 80, 84, 623 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 226 Conn. 908, 625 A.2d 1378 (1993), that “[o]ur rules of practice ... permit the substitution of parties as the interests of justice require. ” (Emphasis added.)

  7. American Tax Funding, LLC v. First Eagle Corp.

    No. HHDCV156057590S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 5, 2019)

    Our rules of practice allow liberal substitution of plaintiffs in foreclosure actions even after judgment enters. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Retirement Management Group, Inc., 31 Conn.App. 80, 84, 623 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 226 Conn . 908, 625 A.2d 1378 (1993). The court inquired of the parties about the effect, if any, of the failure to substitute City Shelter, LLC as the plaintiff in the foreclosure action.

  8. Wilson v. Zemba

    49 Conn. Supp. 542 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)   Cited 23 times
    Concluding that trial court's definition of mistake in DiLieto was “too limiting” and “too difficult to apply,” and holding that legislature meant nothing more than “the lawyer named the wrong plaintiff”

    " In fact, Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Retirement Management Group, Inc., 31 Conn. App. 80, 623 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 226 Conn. 908, 625 A.2d 1378 (1993) seems to adopt such an analysis by referring to § 52-109 and Practice Book § 9-20 and then explicitly mentioning rule 15 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court stated: "In the context of analogous rules of federal civil procedure, it has been observed that '[w]here the change is made on the plaintiff's side to supply an indispensable party or to correct a mistake in ascertaining the real party in interest, in order to pursue effectively the original claim, the defendant will rarely be unfairly prejudiced by letting the amendment relate back to the original pleading.'