Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of an appeal from the approval of a subdivision application because the plaintiffs failed to serve the town clerk as required by General Statutes § 8-8(e). The court held that service on both the board chair or clerk and the municipal clerk is mandatory for jurisdiction, subject only to narrowly defined statutory exceptions. The court concluded that the savings provisions did not excuse the plaintiffs’ defective service.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether failure to serve the clerk of the municipality as required by General Statutes § 8-8 (e) deprived the Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the administrative appeal.
- Whether the savings provisions in General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 8-8 (p) and (q) excused or permitted correction of the plaintiffs' defective service.
Holdings
- Valid service of process in an administrative appeal from a planning commission must include leaving a true and attested copy of the process with the chairman or clerk of the board and leaving a true and attested copy with the clerk of the municipality. Failure to serve the municipal clerk is a fatal jurisdictional defect.
- The savings provisions of General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 8-8 (p) and (q) do not generally cure defective service of process. They apply only in narrowly defined circumstances: when strict adherence would cause surprise or injustice, or when the service problem results from unavoidable accident or negligence or error by the sheriff rather than by the plaintiff.
Key quotations
“A proper citation is essential to the validity of the appeal and the jurisdiction of the court.” (607)
“Defective service of process may not be fatal when either the strict adherence to the mandate of § 8-8 (e) would work surprise or injustice, or the problem with the service is due to negligence or error on the part of the sheriff, not the plaintiff.” (609)
Factual background
In March 1999, Orchard Woods Associates submitted a 161-lot subdivision plan to the East Lyme Planning Commission, which unanimously approved it in May 1999. The plaintiffs commenced an appeal by service of process on June 4, 1999. Their citation directed service on the commission chairperson or clerk but did not mention the clerk of the municipality, and the town clerk was not served.
Procedural history
Orchard Woods Associates, L.P. submitted a 161-lot subdivision plan, which the Planning Commission approved. The plaintiffs commenced an administrative appeal but served the commission chairperson and the developer's agent without serving the town clerk as required by General Statutes § 8-8 (e). The Superior Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed.