Tax Collector v. Miley
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeiman, J.
The defendants appeal1 from the judgments of the trial court of foreclosure by sale. On *636appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) denied the intervenor’s motion to be joined as a party2 and (2) rendered judgments of foreclosure because it lacked jurisdiction based on the service of process on the parties and because the service of process violated the parties’ constitutional rights. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are necessary for a proper resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff filed two complaints for foreclosure. The first complaint…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- In re Baby Girl B.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Ass'n v. Freedom of Information CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Polymer Resources, Ltd. v. KeeneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Connelly v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'nDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2003
- LaRosa v. LupoliConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- Connelly v. FEDERAL NAT. MORTG. ASS'NDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2003
- Franco v. East Shore Development, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Long v. Fredericks, No. Hdsp 105504 (Jan. 20, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.