election of remedies doctrine in Connecticut

1997The court noted at 225 Conn. 809 n. 6: The doctrine of election of remedies is equitable in nature and "is largely a survival from the formulary procedure of the common law which necessarily demanded consistency as an end in itself; [the] doctrine does not entirely accord with the modern conception of procedure which sacrifices consistency so far as is necessary to the attainment of substantial justice; and . . . the doctrine is a harsh one not to be extended.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) National Transportation Co. v. Toquet, 123 Conn. 468 , 479 , 196 A. 344 (1937).

1997The court noted at 225 Conn. 809 n. 6: The doctrine of election of remedies is equitable in nature and "is largely a survival from the formulary procedure of the common law which necessarily demanded consistency as an end in itself; [the] doctrine does not entirely accord with the modern conception of procedure which sacrifices consistency so far as is necessary to the attainment of substantial justice; and . . . the doctrine is a harsh one not to be extended.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) National Transportation Co. v. Toquet, 123 Conn. 468 , 479 , 196 A. 344 (1937).

1997Partnership v. Barclay Stables, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (1993), involved a rejection of the election of remedies claim and an allowance of a party's right to proceed to enforce a lease and/or a settlement agreement.

1997Partnership v. Barclay Stables, Inc., CT Page 5368 225 Conn. 804 (1993), involved a rejection of the election of remedies claim and an allowance of a party's right to proceed to enforce a lease and/or a settlement agreement.

2024In Grant v. Bassman, 221 Conn. 465 , 604 A.2d 814 (1992), we held that a defendant’s claim that the plain- tiffs had made an exclusive election of workers’ com- pensation pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 31-284 (a) was not raised properly by a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdic- tion and should have been raised in a special defense.

2024In Grant v. Bassman, 221 Conn. 465 , 604 A.2d 814 (1992), we held that a defendant’s claim that the plain- tiffs had made an exclusive election of workers’ com- pensation pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 31-284 (a) was not raised properly by a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdic- tion and should have been raised in a special defense.

2022By way of this argument, the department attempts to trans- form an election of remedies claim into an issue of subject matter jurisdiction by implicating sovereign immunity. ‘‘As a general rule, facts must be pleaded as a special defense when they are consistent with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action.’’ Mitchell v. Guardian Systems, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 158, 166 , 804 A.2d 1004 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 903 , 810 A.2d 269 (2002).

2022By way of this argument, the department attempts to trans- form an election of remedies claim into an issue of subject matter jurisdiction by implicating sovereign immunity. ‘‘As a general rule, facts must be pleaded as a special defense when they are consistent with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action.’’ Mitchell v. Guardian Systems, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 158, 166 , 804 A.2d 1004 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 903 , 810 A.2d 269 (2002).

2022By way of this argument, the department attempts to trans- form an election of remedies claim into an issue of subject matter jurisdiction by implicating sovereign immunity. ‘‘As a general rule, facts must be pleaded as a special defense when they are consistent with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action.’’ Mitchell v. Guardian Systems, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 158, 166 , 804 A.2d 1004 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 903 , 810 A.2d 269 (2002).

2022By way of this argument, the department attempts to trans- form an election of remedies claim into an issue of subject matter jurisdiction by implicating sovereign immunity. ‘‘As a general rule, facts must be pleaded as a special defense when they are consistent with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action.’’ Mitchell v. Guardian Systems, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 158, 166 , 804 A.2d 1004 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 903 , 810 A.2d 269 (2002).

2015See, e.g., Bankers Trust v. Greims, supra, 110 Conn. 36 ; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501 , 103 A. 647 (1918); Goodwin v. Chaffee, 4 Conn. 163 (1822). 10 The plaintiff also asserts that the values reported on federal estate tax forms should be used as the basis for determining the statutory share.

2015See, e.g., Bankers Trust v. Greims, supra, 110 Conn. 36 ; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501 , 103 A. 647 (1918); Goodwin v. Chaffee, 4 Conn. 163 (1822). 10 The plaintiff also asserts that the values reported on federal estate tax forms should be used as the basis for determining the statutory share.

2015See, e.g., Bankers Trust v. Greims, supra, 110 Conn. 36 ; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501 , 103 A. 647 (1918); Goodwin v. Chaffee, 4 Conn. 163 (1822). 10 The plaintiff also asserts that the values reported on federal estate tax forms should be used as the basis for determining the statutory share.

2015The defendant further claims that the trial court incor- rectly relied on this court’s decision in DelVecchio v. DelVecchio, 146 Conn. 188, 196 , 148 A.2d 554 (1959), to conclude that the choice between a statutory share and an intestate one is an election of rights rather than remedies.

2015The defendant further claims that the trial court incor- rectly relied on this court’s decision in DelVecchio v. DelVecchio, 146 Conn. 188, 196 , 148 A.2d 554 (1959), to conclude that the choice between a statutory share and an intestate one is an election of rights rather than remedies.

2007I The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly applied the election of remedies doctrine because his choice of specific performance was consistent with his prior request that his deposit be returned if a closing was not possible. 6 The election of remedies doctrine, in essence, states that “a party who manifests the choice of one available remedy among others by bringing suit or otherwise has not barred his right to pursue any other remedy unless the remedies are inconsistent and the other party materially changes his position in reliance on the manifestation.” (Internal quotation mark

2007I The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly applied the election of remedies doctrine because his choice of specific performance was consistent with his prior request that his deposit be returned if a closing was not possible. 6 The election of remedies doctrine, in essence, states that “a party who manifests the choice of one available remedy among others by bringing suit or otherwise has not barred his right to pursue any other remedy unless the remedies are inconsistent and the other party materially changes his position in reliance on the manifestation.” (Internal quotation mark

2002More importantly, the court feels compelled, at this juncture, to recall for Mr. Novicelli the equitable principle that "he who seeks equity must do equity." Lesser v. Lesser , 134 Conn. 418 , CT Page 6536 426, 58 A.2d 512 (1948).

2002More importantly, the court feels compelled, at this juncture, to recall for Mr. Novicelli the equitable principle that "he who seeks equity must do equity." Lesser v. Lesser , 134 Conn. 418 , CT Page 6536 426, 58 A.2d 512 (1948).

2002Delucia v. Burns , supra, 11 Conn. App. 447 . 2.

1994In Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161, 186 , 501 A.2d 505 (1985), for example, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the doctrine of election of remedies did not bar the plaintiffs, who had filed claims under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act, from pursuing a civil action for intentional torts even though it was undisputed that the plaintiffs’ claims were compensable under that act.

1994In Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161, 186 , 501 A.2d 505 (1985), for example, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the doctrine of election of remedies did not bar the plaintiffs, who had filed claims under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act, from pursuing a civil action for intentional torts even though it was undisputed that the plaintiffs’ claims were compensable under that act.

1991DeLucia v. Burns, 11 Conn. App. 439 , 447 .