Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P.C. v. Cadle Co., 278 Conn. 92

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed judgments arising from a law firm's collection action and subsequent foreclosure of a judgment lien against The Cadle Company. The court held that a forum selection clause designating Ohio courts did not divest the Connecticut trial court of personal jurisdiction, and that actual notice excused the statutory continuance otherwise required for a nonresident, nonappearing defendant.

Holdings

1. A contractual forum-selection clause does not divest a court of otherwise existing personal jurisdiction over the parties. It instead presents a question whether the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction and enforce the selected forum, and a party may lose the benefit of the clause by failing to seek its timely enforcement.
2. The statutory three-month continuance for a nonresident, nonappearing defendant is not required, or terminates if granted, when the court finds that the defendant received actual notice at least twelve days before the relevant finding. A signed certified-mail receipt addressed to the corporation's secretary, together with the defendant's admission that it received the papers, was sufficient evidence to support the finding of actual notice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an Ohio forum-selection clause deprived the Connecticut trial court of personal jurisdiction over a nonappearing defendant in an action arising from the parties' contract.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to open the foreclosure judgment when it failed to order the three-month continuance required for a nonresident, nonappearing defendant, where the evidence established actual notice of the action.

Disposition

affirmed