Szabo v. Beregszazy
Decision Date | 23 December 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 4731,4731 |
Citation | 519 A.2d 81,9 Conn.App. 368 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ignatius SZABO et al. v. Anna BEREGSZAZY, Administratrix (Estate of Michael J. SZABO). |
Nathan C. Nasser, Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).
J. Roger Shall, for appellee (defendant).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and SPALLONE and BIELUCH, JJ.
In this case, the plaintiffs' appeal from the Probate Court was made returnable to the incorrect judicial district. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal because of improper venue.
The trial court, in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, stated in its memorandum of decision that probate appeals are purely statutory and are governed by General Statutes §§ 45-288 1 and 45-290. 2 Pursuant to these statutes, the court found that any defect in the form of an appeal, including improper venue, must be corrected by amendment within ninety days after the date of the probate action being appealed. The trial court held that General Statutes § 51-351, 3 which provides a remedy for causes filed at an improper location, did not apply to probate appeals. We disagree.
In Sprague v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 3 Conn.App. 484, 486, 489 A.2d 1064 (1985), we held that the term "cause" as used in § 51-351 includes administrative appeals as well as ordinary civil actions. Our analysis in Sprague is applicable to the present case, and we hold that "cause" in § 51-351 also applies to appeals from probate.
In its analysis, the trial court reasoned in part that the saving provision of General Statutes § 51-351 did not apply because General Statutes § 45-290 provided a procedure for curing defective probate appeals. However, the procedures for correcting defective appeals outlined in § 45-290 are general and apply to any defect in the form of an appeal. The procedure in § 51-351, on the other hand, is specific and is only concerned with saving "causes" returned to an improper location. Under accepted rules of statutory construction, provisions of special applicability take precedence over those of general applicability. Patry v. Board of Trustees, 190 Conn. 460, 468, 461 A.2d 443 (1983); Budkofsky v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 177 Conn. 588, 592, 419 A.2d 333 (1979); Meriden v. Board of Tax Review, 161 Conn. 396, 401-402, 288 A.2d 435 (1971). Under the circumstances in this case, the applicability of the rule is evident. Whereas General Statutes § 45-290 applies generally to any defect of a probate appeal, § 51-351 applies specifically and only to causes returned to an improper location. Section 51-351, therefore, addressed the precise defect in this case and it was error for the court to conclude that the defect should have been corrected according to the more general provisions of § 45-290.
There is error, the judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law.
1 General Statutes § 45-288 provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reed v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Chester
...over those of general applicability. Patry v. Board of Trustees, 190 Conn. 460, 468, 461 A.2d 443 (1983); Szabo v. Beregszazy, 9 Conn.App. 368, 370, 519 A.2d 81 (1986). Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, the particular requirements of section 3.3.6 regarding public road access......
- State v. Walzer
-
Merry-Go-Round Enterprises, Inc. v. Molnar
...of judgments of mortgage foreclosures. See Patry v. Board of Trustees, 190 Conn. 460, 468, 461 A.2d 443 (1983); Szabo v. Beregszazy, 9 Conn.App. 368, 370, 519 A.2d 81 (1986). General Statutes § 49-15 provides that: "Any judgment foreclosing the title to real estate by strict foreclosure may......
-
Archambault v. Water Pollution Control Authority of Town of Waterford
...the town sought to retain its discretionary authority over where and when to construct sewer extensions. See Szabo v. Beregszazy, 9 Conn.App. 368, 370, 519 A.2d 81 (1986) (provisions of special applicability take precedence over general The trial court, therefore, erred in finding that § 16......