Pinnix v. LaMorte, 438 A.2d 102 (Conn. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Pinnix v. LaMorte, 438 A.2d 102 (Conn. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
66 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Debernardo v. Pinewood Lake Assn., Inc. (connsuperct, 1999-03-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Debernardo v. Pinewood Lake Assn., Inc. (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342, 343 , 438 A.2d 102 (1980) (injunctive relief may be ancillary to declaratory relief).
cited Cited "see" Debernardo v. Pinewood Lake Assoc., No. X01-Cv93-0149841 (Mar. 11, 1999)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342 , 342 (1980) (injunctive relief may be ancillary to declaratory relief).
cited Cited "see" Salem Taxpayers v. Teel, No. 51 92 72 (Feb. 25, 1992)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tucker v. Maher, supra, at page 471, citing Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342 , 343 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" Tucker v. Connecticut Natural Gas Co. (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342, 343 , 438 A.2d 102 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" Tucker v. Maher (2×)
Conn. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342, 343 , 438 A.2d 102 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" Russo v. Town of Watertown (2×)
Conn. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342, 343 , 438 A.2d 102 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pizza Connection, Inc. (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Stroiney v. Crescent Lake Tax District, 197 Conn. 82, 84 , 495 A.2d 1063 (1985) (judgment rendered as to liability without award of damages is interlocutory in character and not final judgment from which appeal lies); see also Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342, 343 , 438 A.2d 102 (1980); Palmer v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co., 157 Conn. 597 , 253 A.2d 28 (1968).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Perkins v. Colonial Cemeteries, Inc. (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Because the trial court has yet to exercise its discretion to award the plaintiff punitive damages under the CUTPA count of her complaint, the rights of the parties have not been “so conclud[ed] . . . that further proceedings cannot affect them.” Id; see also Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342, 343 , 438 A.2d 102 (1980).
Burrie T. Pinnix
v.
Nicholas D. LaMorte, Trustee
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 11, 1980.
438 A.2d 102
Jules Lang, for the appellant (plaintiff)., James J. Farrell, for the appellee (defendant).
Cotter, Bogdanski, Peters, Healey, Parskey.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published
[*343] Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action seeking a judgment declaring a mortgage note and deed invalid on the ground that the defendant lender had charged an excessive rate of interest on the loan. The plaintiff’s wife was solely liable on the note, but was never given reasonable notice of or made a party to the action. The court rendered summary judgment in the defendant’s favor and the plaintiff appealed.

Practice Book, 1978, § 390 (d) governing actions for declaratory judgment requires all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint to be parties to the action or have reasonable notice thereof. Failure to observe this requirement deprives the court of jurisdiction over the case. State ex rel. Kelman v. Schaffer, 161 Conn. 522, 526-27, 290 A.2d 327 (1971). Along with his prayer for declaratory relief, the plaintiff sought an injunction and damages. These claims must fall with the claim for a declaratory judgment because they were merely ancillary to it. Clough v. Wilson, 170 Conn. 548, 556, 368 A.2d 231 (1976).

The defendant filed a counterclaim for damages resulting from the plaintiff’s failure to pay to the defendant funds held as security for the note, which the defendant alleged was in default. The court’s granting of summary judgment on this counterclaim is also appealed from. Neither in the judgment file nor in the memorandum of decision, however, are any damages awarded to the defendant. We therefore view the judgment as relating only to the question of liability. See Practice Book, 1978, § 385. Such a judgment is not a final judgment from which an appeal lies. New Haven Redevelopment Agency v. Research Associates, Inc., 153 Conn. 118,[*344] 120, 214 A.2d 375 (1965). Because the lack of a final judgment is a jurisdictional defect, we must dismiss the appeal. Id.

There is error in the judgment on the complaint, the judgment as to it is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. As to the appeal from the counterclaim, the appeal is dismissed.