Case Name: State of Connecticut v. J. Ronald Regnier, Administrator d.b.n., c.t.a. (Estate of Charles W. Blankenburg)
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1975-06-04
Citations: 33 Conn. Supp. 14
Docket Number: File No. 195389
Parties: State of Connecticut v. J. Ronald Regnier, Administrator d.b.n., c.t.a. (Estate of Charles W. Blankenburg)
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Supplement
Volume: 33
Pages: 14–15

Head Matter:
State of Connecticut v. J. Ronald Regnier, Administrator d.b.n., c.t.a. (Estate of Charles W. Blankenburg)
Superior Court Hartford County
File No. 195389
Memorandum filed June 4, 1975
Carl R. Ajello, attorney general, and F. Michael Ahern and David J. Della-Bitta, assistant attorneys general, for the plaintiff.
Regnier, Moller & Taylor, for the defendant.

Opinion:
McCarthy, J.
The state brings this action to contest disallowance of a claim against the decedent's estate disallowed on May 14,1973. That writ was served April 8,1975, and the defendant demurs to the complaint on the ground that "[t]he plaintiff has failed to initiate the action within the statutory time period," which is four months after disallowance. General Statutes § 45-210.
Generally, the sovereign is not subject to statutes of limitation. State v. Goldfarb, 160 Conn. 320, 323. The state, however, is bound by the nonclaim statute, § 45-205 of the General Statutes. Goldfarb, supra, 326. While that section's operation differs from that of § 45-210, in issue here, their purposes are similar, both designed to "facilitate the speedy settlement of estates." Goldfarb, supra; Robbins v. Coffing, 52 Conn. 118, 141. The sovereign should abide by the statute, "to avoid the indefinite postponement of the settlement of estates to the detriment of the rightful beneficiaries, a purpose to which government as well as any other creditor should be required to adhere." Goldfarb, supra.
Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained.