Court Opinion

ID: 9700013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:06:35.359489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:02.761790
License: Public Domain

Mellitz, J.
(dissenting). To be entitled to the relief she sought, the plaintiff was obliged to furnish a basis for quasi in rem jurisdiction by a valid attachment of the defendant’s property. The pertinent statutes, with which strict compliance was required for this purpose, were General Statutes § 52-281, relating to an application and order for an attachment during the pendency of an action, § 52-285, prescribing the manner in which an attachment of real estate must be made, and § 52-284, dealing with the service of process which is required in order that an attachment against the estate of a nonresident may become effective. Pursuant to § 52-281, the plaintiff applied to, and obtained from, a judge of the Superior Court an order for the attachment of the estate of the defendant and for the service of an attested copy of the application and order upon the defendant by registered mail. A return of service, showing compliance with this order, was made by a sheriff. The return recited that he attached real estate owned by the defendant in Green*246wich, in the manner prescribed by § 52-285, and that he sent the specified documents to the defendant by registered mail, as commanded in the order, within the time prescribed. The question is whether compliance with the provisions of § 52-284 required also that the return, or the record otherwise, show that there was no person in charge or possession of the estate attached.
Section 52-284 provides that a copy of the process and complaint, with a return describing the estate attached, shall be left by the officer with the agent or attorney of the defendant in this state; if the defendant has no agent or attorney within this state, a like copy shall be left with the person in charge or possession of the estate attached; and, if there is no person in charge or possession of the estate attached, the court before which the action is returnable or any judge thereof may order such notice of the commencement or pendency of the action to be given the defendant as the court or the judge deems reasonable. Thus, absence of some person in charge or possession of the estate attached is a prerequisite to the issuance of an order of notice by the court or a judge thereof and to the validity of service pursuant to the order of notice. When the application is made to a judge, the question whether the conditions are present to authorize the issuance of such an order of notice is for the determination of the judge. If the conditions prerequisite to such an order are, in fact, not present, and the order is issued, the action may be abated; Mendrochowicz v. Wolfe, 139 Conn. 506, 512, 95 A.2d 260; but if the issue is raised, evidence may be introduced to show that the prerequisite conditions actually existed, although the officer’s return is silent on the subject. See Reade v. In*247demnity Ins. Co., 121 Conn. 309, 312, 184 A. 646.
The defendant in the instant case filed a motion to erase and dismiss but did not raise this issue. I can see no reason why a plaintiff who, seeking an order for the attachment of the property of a nonresident, knows that there is no one in charge or possession of that property may not, under the provisions of § 52-284, represent that fact to the judge to whom the application is made and, as here, obtain an order for an attachment and at the same time an order for sendee on the defendant of a notice of the pendency of the action, as required by § 52-284. Nor am I aware of any authority for a requirement that a particular procedure must be followed by the judge in order that he may exercise the discretion vested in him by the statute to issue an order of notice where he is satisfied that there is no one in charge or possession of the property. The statement made in Fosdick v. Roberson, 91 Conn. 571, 578, 100 A. 1059, that before such an order of notice may be issued, some inquiry must be made by the court and the court must find, after hearing evidence, that no person was in charge or possession of the estate attached, was made when the statute provided that only the court before which the action was returnable was authorized to issue an order of notice. There the order of notice had been issued by an assistant clerk, and the opinion emphasized that the notice was required to be prescribed by the court and to be what the court deemed reasonable, not what the clerk of the court or the plaintiff deemed reasonable. The statement in the opinion may still be appropriate in cases where the application for the order of notice is made to the court. After the Fosdick case, supra, the statute was amended to provide that the order of notice *248could be issued not only by tbe court but by a judge of the court and could be such notice as the judge deems reasonable. Cum. Sup. 1953, § 2397c. Failure of the officer’s return to recite that there was no person in charge or possession of the property is not fatal, and the service by an order of notice will be proper if it is shown, in the event the issue is raised, that in fact there was no person in charge or possession of the property attached. The return of the officer is required to show fully and clearly the manner in which the service was made and compliance with the directions of the order for service. The return here fulfilled these requirements.
In my view, the record establishes that a valid attachment was made of the defendant’s property and that the plaintiff laid the basis for the exercise by the court of its jurisdiction, quasi in rem, to enter the orders for alimony and support.