Case ID: conn-app_10/html/0166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Linus Sanstrom, Jr., et al. v. Hugh S. Strickland et al.
    
    (4835)
    Dupont, C. J., Hull and Daly, Js.
    Submitted on briefs February 9
    decision released March 10, 1987
    
      Michael F. Dowling and Jule A. Crawford filed a brief for the appellants (plaintiffs).
    
      Charles M. Rice, Jr., filed a brief for the appellees (defendants).
    
      
       Superseded. See 11 Conn. App. 211, 525 A.2d 989 (1987).
    
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s discharge of a lis pendens which had been filed against real property owned by the defendants pursuant to General Statutes § 52-325.

On January 6, 1986, after a hearing held in accordance with General Statutes § 52-325a, the trial court found no probable cause to sustain the lis pendens and granted the defendants’ motion to discharge it. General Statutes § 52-325c (b) provides in pertinent part: “No appeal shall be taken from such order except within seven days thereof.” The plaintiffs’ appeal, therefore, absent a proper extension of time to file an appeal, should have been filed on or before January 13, 1986. The plaintiffs did not file this appeal until January 21, 1986. “ ‘ “The right of appeal is purely statutory and is accorded only if the conditions fixed by statute and the rules of court for taking and prosecuting the appeal are met.” ’ ” DeTeves v. DeTeves, 202 Conn. 292, 295, 520 A.2d 608 (1987). Since this appeal is not timely, it is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.