Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-87 (2026)

Continuance on account of absent or nonresident defendant. Exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Every civil action in which the defendant is an inhabitant of this state but is absent from the state at the commencement of the action and continues to be absent until after the return day, without having entered any appearance therein, shall be continued or postponed for thirty days by order of the court. If the defendant does not then appear and no special reason is shown for further delay, judgment by default may be rendered against him.

(b) If the defendant is not an inhabitant or a resident of this state at the commencement of the action and does not appear therein, the court shall continue or postpone it for three months and may, if it deems further notice advisable, direct such further notice of the pendency of the action to be given to the defendant by publication in some newspaper, or otherwise, as it deems expedient, or may authorize any person empowered to serve process by the laws of the foreign jurisdiction in which the defendant resides to serve upon the defendant a copy of the summons and complaint and of the order of notice. Any such person serving process in a foreign jurisdiction shall make affidavit of his actions concerning the process on the original order of notice. If, upon the expiration of such three months, the defendant does not then appear and no special reason is shown for further delay, judgment may be rendered against the defendant by default. Upon the expiration of the three-month continuance, it shall be presumed prima facie that no special reason for further delay exists. In actions of foreclosure, including prayers for relief incident thereto and part thereof, judgment may then be rendered upon the plaintiff's motion for judgment of foreclosure.

(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of any civil action brought under and pursuant to section 47-33 or 52-69, and no continuance or postponement of any such action or additional notice of the pendency thereof may be required unless the court so orders.

(d) A continuance or postponement under this section shall not be granted or, if granted, shall terminate if actual notice is shown in accordance with section 52-88.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of any civil action in which service of process is made pursuant to subsection (c) of section 52-59b with respect to a nonresident individual or foreign partnership over whom the court may exercise personal jurisdiction as provided in subdivision (4) of subsection (a) of section 52-59b.

(1949 Rev., S. 7808; 1957, P.A. 282; 1959, P.A. 151; P.A. 82-160, S. 34; P.A. 92-38, S. 3.)

History: 1959 act amended third sentence to provide for continuation or postponement where defendant does not appear “therein” (referring to this state) rather than where he does not appear “and answer thereto” (referring to the action; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section, added Subsec. indicators and added Subsec. (d) concerning the denial or termination of a continuance or postponement; P.A. 92-38 added Subsec. (e) re nonapplicability of section to civil action in which service of process is made pursuant to Subsec. (c) of Sec. 52-59b with respect to nonresident individual or foreign partnership over whom court can exercise personal jurisdiction.

No bond is necessary if defendant returns and has notice of suit before second term. 8 C. 115. Not applicable to suits begun by foreign attachment against a defendant not in this state. 49 C. 452. Judgment rendered without continuance not void, but only erroneous. 62 C. 553. Statute applied to garnishment of debt due nonresident. 79 C. 15. Proper procedure outlined. 108 C. 175. Cited. 113 C. 81; 116 C. 49; 121 C. 35; 150 C. 192; 181 C. 607; 183 C. 369; 196 C. 172; 226 C. 1.

Cited. 9 CA 1; 16 CA 619.

Purpose is to secure notice of suit to absent defendant. 2 CS 18. Requirements of section must be met in annulment action where defendant has not been served by process in this state. 14 CS 316. Applicable where nonresident defendant does not appear and answer in action brought under Sec. 52-62. 19 CS 285. To be read in conjunction with Sec. 52-88. 33 CS 570. Continuance not granted if nonresident has actual notice. Id., 571.

Subsec. (b):

Trial court did not err in entering default judgment without observing statutory continuance because evidence gave rise to reasonable presumption of receipt of actual notice of the action by defendant. 278 C. 92.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1962–2011 · leading case: Hart, Nininger & Campbell Assocs. v. Rogers, 548 A.2d 758 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hart, Nininger & Campbell Assocs. v. Rogers, 548 A.2d 758 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 19× “On April 3, 1986, two months following the service of process on him, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-87, 9 Rogers was defaulted for failure to appear and *638 defend the action against him.”

Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P.C. v. Cadle Co., 897 A.2d 58 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 14× “3 The defendant also challenges the default judgment in the foreclosure action, contending that the trial court in the foreclosure action improperly failed to observe the statutory continuance for a nonresident, nonappearing defendant as mandated by General Statutes § 52-87 (b)…”

Hartford Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tucker, 491 A.2d 1084 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “Upon written motion of the plaintiff, the trial court appointed a rent receiver for all four properties.”

Burritt Mut. Sav. Bank of New Britain v. Tucker, 439 A.2d 396 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 3× “2 The grounds set forth in the motion to set aside the default were (1) that the expiration of the statutory continuance of three months pursuant to General Statutes § 52-87 on February 16, 1979, allowed the defendant fifteen days beyond that date to plead; and (2) that he “has…”

Willametz v. Susi Contracting Co., 514 A.2d 383 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 4× “Such an application must “state what notice is considered most likely to come to the attention of [the defendant], with the reasons therefor.”

Cato v. Cato, 626 A.2d 734 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 2× “An additional means of control is provided by General Statutes § 52-87, which requires a three month continuance following a nonresident defendant’s failure to appear, and authorizes a judge to direct further notice to the nonappearing party.”

Hartford Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Tucker, 436 A.2d 1259 (Conn. 1980). “On December 1, 1978, pursuant to G-eneral Statutes § 52-87, concerning notices to out-of-state defendants, the defendant’s motion for a statutory continuance was granted.”

Cooley v. Cooley, 628 A.2d 608 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). ““(c) The court having jurisdiction over the fund may make such an order for payment pursuant to subsection (b) when the beneficiary is a nonresident of this state, as well as when the beneficiary is a resident, but in the case of a nonresident beneficiary notice shall be given…”

Black v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 187 A.2d 243 (Conn. 1962). “Black did not contend that any order of continuance was required under the provisions of § 52-87; nor were any facts found or claimed—such as the continued absence of Black from the state until after the return day—which would indicate the possible applicability of any such…”

Matter of Tisdale, 112 B.R. 61 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990). “(c) The court having jurisdiction over the fund may make such an order for payment pursuant to subsection (b) when the beneficiary is a nonresident of this state, as well as when the beneficiary is a resident, but in the case of a nonresident beneficiary notice shall be given to…”

Devore Assocs., LLC v. Sorkin, 31 A.3d 420 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 8× “The defendant argued, both before this court and the trial court, that his absence from the country sufficiently satisfied the second prong of § 52-212 (a), and claimed, in addition, that he was entitled to a statutory three month continuance under General Statutes § 52-87 (b).…”

Robertson v. Fazzalaro, 363 A.2d 755 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1976). · cites it 9× “On November 25, 1974, the Eobertsons brought the present action to enjoin enforcement of the judgment and to declare it a nullity. The only ground alleged for that relief is the failure of the court to have granted a statutory continuance for them as nonresidents in accordance…”

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.