The plaintiff owner of a mobile home community sought, by way of summary
process, to regain possession of certain premises occupied by the defen-
dant. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendant resides in a
mobile home owned by S, who leases a lot from the plaintiff that is
located in the mobile home community, that following the defendant’s
failure to comply with the guidelines of the community, the plaintiff
served him with notice to quit possession of the premises and that the
defendant failed to do so. Following a hearing, the trial court rendered
judgment in favor of the defendant on the basis of its conclusion that
the plaintiff lacked statutory authority to proceed with the summary
process action against the defendant in the absence of S, because, as
the owner of the mobile home, she was a necessary party to the action.
On the plaintiff’s appeal to this court, held:
1. The trial court properly raised, sua sponte, the issue of nonjoinder in the
absence of a motion to strike filed by the defendant; pursuant to the
applicable statute (§ 52-108), the trial court has broad authority to
address issues of nonjoinder that may arise in a case, including the
authority to raise the issue sua sponte.
2. The trial court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant
on the basis of nonjoinder without giving the plaintiff an opportunity
to add S as a party; that court’s rendering of judgment immediately after
concluding that S was a necessary party to the action effectively struck
the plaintiff’s complaint without affording the plaintiff notice and at
least fifteen days to add S to the action pursuant to the applicable rule
of practice (§ 10-44), and, as a result, the court ultimately defeated the
plaintiff’s summary process action on the basis of nonjoinder of a party
despite being proscribed from summarily doing so by the relevant statute
(§ 52-108) and rule of practice (§ 9-19).
Submitted on briefs January 4—officially released April 2, 2019 Procedural History