(a) Upon the hearing held on the application or motion set forth in section
52-325a, the plaintiff shall first be required to establish that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of his claim and, if the action alleges an illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property, that the initial illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property occurred less than sixty years prior to the commencement of the action. Any property owner entitled to notice under subsection (c) of section
52-325 may appear and be heard on the issue.
(b) Upon consideration of the facts before it, the court or judge may: (1) Deny the application or motion if (A) probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim is established or (B) in an action that alleges an illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property, probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim is established and the initial illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property occurred less than sixty years prior to the commencement of the action, or (2) order such notice of lis pendens discharged of record if (A) probable cause to sustain the validity of the plaintiff's claim is not established or (B) in an action that alleges an illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property, the initial illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property occurred sixty years or more prior to the commencement of the action.
(P.A. 81-8, S. 3, 9; Oct. Sp. Sess. P.A. 93-4, S. 3, 4.)
History: Oct. Sp. Sess. P.A. 93-4 amended Subsec. (a) to require the plaintiff in an action that alleges an illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property to establish that the initial illegal, invalid or defective transfer occurred less than 60 years prior to the commencement of the action and amended Subsec. (b)(1) and (2) to add Subpara. (B) re the grounds for denying or granting an application or motion to discharge a recorded notice of lis pendens in an action that alleges an illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property, effective November 12, 1993, and applicable to any notice of lis pendens recorded before, on or after said date.
Cited. 189 C. 471; 209 C. 15; 217 C. 24.
Cited. 11 CA 211; 18 CA 16; 32 CA 627.
Cited. 39 CS 195. Effect of notice of lis pendens distinguished from effect of prejudgment attachment; constitutionality discussed. 42 CS 241.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2022 · leading case:
Cadle Co. v. Gabel, 794 A.2d 1029 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
Cadle Co. v. Gabel, 794 A.2d 1029 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 4× ““We note at the outset that the sole purpose of the hearing that gave rise to the trial court order resulting in this appeal was to determine whether there was probable cause to sustain the lis pendens.”
Dunham v. Dunham, 584 A.2d 445 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 5× “Subsec *37 tion (b) of § 52-325b empowers the trial court, having resolved the probable cause issue, either to deny the application for discharge or to order the notice of lis pen-dens discharged.”
Garcia v. Brooks Street Assocs., 546 A.2d 275 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 4× “; as required by General Statutes § 52-325b (b). 1 The issue raised by the plaintiff on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motions discharging the two notices of lis pendens.”
Corsino v. Telesca, 630 A.2d 154 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “3 The merits of the case were not argued by counsel or decided by the trial court, but, rather, the hearing was conducted within the parameters of General Statutes § 52-325b. 4 Because the defendant’s third claim is the only claim that directly addresses the dispositive issue of…”
Wallingford Staffordshire Commons Ass'n v. Staffordshire Assocs., 615 A.2d 188 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 5× “Finally, SVFLP contends that the lis pendens statute is unconstitutional because the probable cause standard provided for in General Statutes § 52-325b is vague. The plaintiff argues that the present case is controlled by Williams v.”
Donenfeld v. Friedman, 829 A.2d 107 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 4× “In such a hearing, the ultimate merits of the case are not argued by counsel or decided by the court, but rather, such a hearing is conducted within the parameters of General Statutes § 52-325b. 1 See Cadle Co.”
Sanstrom v. Strickland, 525 A.2d 989 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 2× “On January 6, 1986, after a hearing held in accordance with General Statutes § 52-325a, the trial court found no probable cause on any of the plaintiffs’ claims to sustain the lis pendens and granted the defendants’ motion to discharge it.”
Brookstone Homes, LLC v. Merco Holdings, LLC, 208 Conn. App. 789 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Section 52-325c provides the procedures by which a party whose lien has been ordered discharged pursuant to General Statutes § 52-325b (b) may stay the effect of that order.”
Brown v. Rosen, 650 A.2d 568 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
“” General Statutes § 52-325c provides in relevant part: “(a) Any order entered as provided in subsection (b) of section 52-325b shall be deemed a final judgment for the purpose of appeal.”
Zak v. Weisman, 556 A.2d 181 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 5× “General Statutes § 52-325b (a); Sanstrom v.”
Shaumyan v. O'NEILL, 716 F. Supp. 65 (D. Conn. 1989).
“section 52-325b(a). Notably, the amended procedure contains no bonding provisions, either requiring a plaintiff to post security for an *76 improvident recording or permitting a defendant to substitute security to obtain release of the lis pendens.”
Srager v. Koenig, 651 A.2d 752 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
“General Statutes § 52-325c provides in relevant part: “(a) Any order entered as provided in subsection (b) of section 52-325b shall be deemed a final judgment for the purpose of appeal.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-325b(a) — 1 case
Shaumyan v. O'NEILL, 716 F. Supp. 65 (D. Conn. 1989).
“section 52-325b(a). Notably, the amended procedure contains no bonding provisions, either requiring a plaintiff to post security for an *76 improvident recording or permitting a defendant to substitute security to obtain release of the lis pendens.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.