England v. Town of Coventry

• Decision Date: 31 March 1981
• Citation: 183 Conn. 362,439 A.2d 372
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Louise C. ENGLAND et al. v. The TOWN OF COVENTRY et al.

Page 372

439 A.2d 372

183 Conn. 362

Louise C. ENGLAND et al. v. The TOWN OF COVENTRY et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 5, 1981.

Decided March 31, 1981.

Robert W. Gordon, Manchester, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Brian S. Mead, East Woodstock, with whom was Abbot B. Schwebel, Rockville, for appellees (defendants).

Before BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY, ARMENTANO, and WRIGHT, JJ.

BOGDANSKI, Associate Justice.

The principal issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint seeking a declaratory judgment.

The complaint alleged that on March 1, 1978, the plaintiffs applied to the Coventry planning and zoning commission for permission to subdivide certain land, located on the westerly side of Lewis Hill Road, a public highway of the defendant town of Coventry; that the commission required the plaintiffs' subdivision plan to show certain improvements to the facilities of the town: i.e. (1) construction of a storm water drainage system on the westerly side of Lewis Hill Road, (2) reconstruction of the westerly shoulder of Lewis Hill Road, and (3) installation of berms on the side facing the land of the plaintiffs; that the development of the subdivision as approved by the commission does not necessitate the improvements to the town facilities which the commission required the plaintiffs to show on the plan; that the plaintiffs have urged the town to make the improvements in question but that the town refuses to do so; that such improvements will cost in excess of $40,000; and that there is a substantial bona fide dispute between the parties and a substantial uncertainty as to their legal relationship growing out of the facts stated in the complaint. By way of relief, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment which would hold the defendant town or alternatively the plaintiffs responsible for the cost of installing the improvements to the town's facilities which the commission required the plaintiffs to show on the plan.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. They alleged that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to appeal under § 8-28 of the General Statutes, which states that "any person aggrieved by ... (a) decision ... of a planning commission ... may appeal therefrom, within fifteen days from the date when notice of such ... decision was so published." The court, citing the ground alleged by the defendants, granted their motion to dismiss.

Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. Henry F. Raab Connecticut, Inc. v. J. W. Fisher Co., --- Conn. ---, 438 A.2d 834 (1981).

When all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint are parties or have reasonable notice of the action; Practice Book, 1978, § 390(d); Pinnix v. LaMorte, --- Conn. ---, 438 A.2d 102 (1980), the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction in any action or proceeding to declare rights and other legal relations on request for such a declaration whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. General Statutes § 52-29. See Connecticut Life & Health Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Jackson, 173 Conn. 352, 358-60, 377 A.2d 1099 (1977). We have consistently construed this broad statutory grant of jurisdiction and the related Practice Book provisions liberally to serve their sound social purpose. Connecticut Savings Bank v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 133 Conn. 403, 409, 51 A.2d 907 (1947). See Larke v. Morrissey, 155 Conn. 163, 167-68, 230 A.2d 562 (1967). Thus, the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction over suits for declaratory relief despite the adequacy of other legal remedies. Connecticut Life & Health Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Jackson, supra, 177 Conn. 359-60, 377 A.2d 1099; Connecticut Savings Bank v. First National Bank & Trust Co., supra, 133 Conn. 409, 51 A.2d 907. ¹ We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the action.

Whether the court, despite its jurisdiction over the subject matter, could properly grant declaratory relief in this case is a distinct question, which is properly raised by a motion to strike. Connecticut Life & Health Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Jackson, supra, 177 Conn. 360, 377 A.2d 1099. For the purpose of deciding such a motion we look only to the well pleaded facts of the complaint, which we assume to be true. ...