John & Jane Doe Lawsuits Prohibited In Connecticut?
It is not uncommon when a party bringing a lawsuit is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint and simply designate such a party as a John or Jane Doe defendant.
However, according to a recent decision by a Connecticut trial court, designating such unknown defendants in this manner is not allowed in lawsuits brought in the state courts of Connecticut. In Younger v. City of E. Haven,(1) (Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 085020500S, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1965 (August 4, 2008, Bellis, J.)), the court ruled that Connecticut practice does not permit actions to be initiated against fictitious defendants, and accordingly, dismissed an action against a defendant designated as John Doe.
The approach of designating defendants in this manner is quite common in mortgage foreclosure actions, where an encumbered property is often in the occupancy and possession of unknown tenants. It appears that, to the extent the foreclosing lender's attorney fails to ascertain the true names of all the occupants in possession of the foreclosed home and simply designates them with a fictitious name, a good argument could be made (based on Younger v. City of E. Haven, and the cases cited therein) that the foreclosure action and/or subsequent eviction proceedings should be dismissed, and that any judgment arising therefrom should be declared void for lack of personal jurisdiction, as to those unnamed "John & Jane Doe" occupants. Just something to think about when fighting off foreclosure evictions on behalf of Connecticut tenants.
For the longer version of this post, see "John & Jane Doe" Immune From Connecticut Civil Lawsuits?
(1) Link may require free registration at LexisOne Free Case Law.
However, according to a recent decision by a Connecticut trial court, designating such unknown defendants in this manner is not allowed in lawsuits brought in the state courts of Connecticut. In Younger v. City of E. Haven,(1) (Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 085020500S, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1965 (August 4, 2008, Bellis, J.)), the court ruled that Connecticut practice does not permit actions to be initiated against fictitious defendants, and accordingly, dismissed an action against a defendant designated as John Doe.
The approach of designating defendants in this manner is quite common in mortgage foreclosure actions, where an encumbered property is often in the occupancy and possession of unknown tenants. It appears that, to the extent the foreclosing lender's attorney fails to ascertain the true names of all the occupants in possession of the foreclosed home and simply designates them with a fictitious name, a good argument could be made (based on Younger v. City of E. Haven, and the cases cited therein) that the foreclosure action and/or subsequent eviction proceedings should be dismissed, and that any judgment arising therefrom should be declared void for lack of personal jurisdiction, as to those unnamed "John & Jane Doe" occupants. Just something to think about when fighting off foreclosure evictions on behalf of Connecticut tenants.
For the longer version of this post, see "John & Jane Doe" Immune From Connecticut Civil Lawsuits?
(1) Link may require free registration at LexisOne Free Case Law.
posted by Home Equity Theft Reporter at 4:02 AM
<< Home