author: Covello, J.

text:
    Erling Charles Christophersen v. Charles Blount, Jr., et al.
    (14003)
    Peters, C. J., Callahan, Glass, Covello and Hull, Js.
    Argued October 4—
    decision released November 20, 1990

      S. Robert Jelley, with whom were Susan J. Bryson and Danielle M. Pemberton, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Hans C. F. Wriedt, for the appellees (defendants).
   Covello, J.

This is an action for the specific performance of a real estate contract. The principal issue is whether the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff buyer’s nineteen month delay in carrying out a condition precedent to the defendant sellers’ obligation to perform bars his claim against them for specific performance. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that an unreasonable time had passed, that the defendant sellers’ duty to perform had terminated, and that the plaintiff, therefore, could not obtain specific performance of the contract.

On April 21, 1983, the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiff two parcels of land from a larger tract in Westport. The contract stated that the closing would take place at an unspecified date “fourteen (14) days after approval by the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission of a subdivision of the Sellers’ premises.” The contract further provided that “[t]he Seller hereby appoints the Purchaser as his Attorney-in-Fact to accomplish a subdivision of the Sellers’ property . . . .” On November 21,1984, nineteen months later, the plaintiff submitted an application for subdivision approval to the Westport planning and zoning commission (commission). Thereafter, the defendants’ attorney wrote the commission stating that the plaintiff had no authority to seek a subdivision of the property in their behalf. The commission thereafter refused to accept the subdivision application without the defendants’ personal signatures.

The plaintiff then began this action seeking specific performance of the contract. After a hearing, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants concluding that: (1) the plaintiff had delayed an unreasonable amount of time in filing the subdivision application; (2) the contract failed to comply with General Statutes § 52-550, the statute of frauds; and (3) the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance was barred by General Statutes § 47-33a, the statute of limitations. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. We transferred the case to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023. We conclude that while the contract complied with the statute of frauds, the defendants’ obligation to transfer the property terminated because of the plaintiff’s failure to fulfill an express condition precedent within a reasonable time.

“A memorandum does not satisfy the statute of frauds if it lacks essential terms concerning the performance contemplated by the contract.” Faloutico v. Maher, 182 Conn. 448, 448, 438 A.2d 710 (1980); Robert Lawrence Associates, Inc. v. Del Vecchio, 178 Conn. 1, 11, 420 A.2d 1142 (1979). However, “[t]he mere absence of a time for performance in a contract of sale does not ordinarily make it unenforceable, because the law will imply a reasonable time for performance if none has been specified.” Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86, 93, 439 A.2d 1066 (1982); see also Parkway Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Wooldridge Bros., Inc., 148 Conn. 21, 26, 166 A.2d 710 (1960). Thus, because the law implies a reasonable time to perform when a time for performance is not stated, this contract did not fail to comply with the statute of frauds.

Although the contract in this case complies with the statute of frauds, if an express “condition [in the contract] is not fulfilled, the right to enforce the contract does not come into existence.” Lach v. Cahill, 138 Conn. 418, 421, 85 A.2d 481 (1951). “A condition precedent is a fact or event which the parties intend must exist or take place before there is a right to performance.” Id. “Whether the performance of a certain act by a party to a contract is a condition precedent to the duty of the other party to act depends on the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract and read in light of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument.” Ravitch v. Stollman Poultry Farms, Inc., 165 Conn. 135, 149, 328 A.2d 711 (1973); Lach v. Cahill, supra.

The contract stated that “[t]he Closing of Title shall take place . . . fourteen (14) days after approval by the [commission] of a subdivision of the Sellers’ premises.” The trial court correctly found that this language manifested the intent of the parties that subdivision approval be an accomplished fact before the defendants’ duty to convey the property would arise. The contract further stated that “[t]he Seller hereby appoints the Purchaser as his Attorney-in-Fact to accomplish a subdivision of the Sellers’ property . ...” As between the parties, as the trial court determined, the contract imposed on the plaintiff the responsibility to procure commission approval for the subdivision and thus required the plaintiff to bear the risk of the nonoccurrence of this condition in timely fashion.

The trial court further found that the contract did not require the plaintiff to satisfy the condition by any particular date. In the absence of a specified time limit to comply with a condition precedent, the law implies a reasonable time. Lack v. Cahill, supra, 422; see also J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts (3d Ed.) § 11-18, p. 461; E. Farnsworth, Contracts (1982) § 8.3, p. 544.

“What is a reasonable length of time is ordinarily a question of fact for the trier.” Parkway Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Wooldridge Bros., Inc., supra, 26; see also Lach v. Cahill, supra, 421. Here, the trial court found that the plaintiff had delayed nineteen months in seeking approval for the subdivision and concluded that this was an unreasonable amount of time under the circumstances. Because this conclusion was a reasonable corollary of the predicate finding that nineteen months had elapsed, we find no legal basis for disturbing the trial court’s conclusion on appeal. Season-All Industries, Inc. v. R. J. Grosso, Inc., 213 Conn. 486, 498, 569 A.2d 32 (1990). “[SJince the plaintiff[] had failed to perform [his] obligations under the [contract], the right to enforce the [contract] was not in existence and the defendants were under no obligation to convey the property.” Brauer v. Freccia, 159 Conn. 289, 294, 268 A.2d 645 (1970).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       General Statutes § 52-550 provides in relevant part: “(a) No civil action may be maintained in the following cases unless the agreement, or a memorandum of the agreement, is made in writing and signed by the party, or the agent of the party, to be charged ... (4) upon any agreement for the sale of real property or any interest in or concerning real property }}

       General Statutes § 47-33a provides: “action on agreement to sell real estate, (a) No interest in real property existing under an executory agreement for the sale of real property or for the sale of an interest in real property or under an option to purchase real property shall survive longer than one year after the date provided in the agreement for the performance of it or, if the date is not so provided, longer than eighteen months after the date on which the agreement was executed, unless the interest is extended as provided herein or unless action is commenced within the period to enforce the agreement and notice of lis pendens is filed as directed by section 52-325.
      “(b) The interest may be extended only by reexecution of the written agreement or by execution of a new written agreement, provided the agreement, whether reexecuted or newly executed, shall be recorded as directed by sections 47-10 and 47-17. The period provided by this section shall not otherwise be extended, whether because of death, disability or absence from the state or for any other reason. Upon the expiration of an interest the title to property affected by the interest shall not thereafter be considered unmarketable because of the expired interest.
      “(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or deny any legal or equitable rights a party may have under the agreement except the right to have the agreement specifically enforced.”
      The trial court concluded that the statute of limitations contained in § 47-33a was applicable and barred the plaintiff’s claim. Because we find that the defendants’ duty to perform terminated before the plaintiff requested approval from the commission, we do not reach the issue of the applicability of § 47-33a.

       The defendants also claim that the contract failed for want of consideration. The contract stated that the plaintiff paid $100 in consideration. There was evidence that this was never paid. The contract, however, contains language indicating an exchange of mutual promises. We have often held that the exchange of promises is sufficient consideration to support a finding of the existence of a contract. Taft Realty Corporation v. Yorkhaven Enterprises, Inc., 146 Conn. 338, 342, 150 A.2d 597 (1959); Kay Petroleum Corporation v. Piergrossi, 137 Conn. 620, 622, 79 A.2d 829 (1951).

       See also 5 S. Williston, Contracts (3d Ed. Jaeger) § 663.

       “A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur, unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a contract becomes due.” 2 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 224.

       The plaintiff argues that he had done all he could to perform and that the nonoccurrence of the condition is due to the defendants’ failure to cooperate with the plaintiff by not signing the application for the subdivision. Normally, a duty to satisfy a condition precedent is excused if the other party does not cooperate. E. Farnsworth, Contracts (1982) § 8.6, pp. 565-66. The plaintiffs argument, however, overlooks the fact that the trial court found that the plaintiffs nineteen month delay in acting excused the defendants’ obligation to perform at all. Therefore, the defendants’ obligation to cooperate had terminated before the plaintiff ever attempted to file the subdivision application.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Hull, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    James S. Erisoty’s Appeal from Probate
    (14002)
    Peters, C. J., Shea, Glass, Hull and Borden, Js.
    Argued October 3—
    decision released November 27, 1990

      Frank P. Lockard, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Ellen Burns Landers, for the appellee (Willie Edward Harrison).

      Richard C. Willard, for the minor child.
   Hull, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether in a paternity action by an alleged biological father a presumed biological father ordered by the Probate Court to submit to a blood grouping test is aggrieved as a result of the order within the meaning of General Statutes § 45-288. We conclude that since an order to submit to a blood grouping test may adversely affect one’s legally protected interest in human dignity and privacy, a person is aggrieved by such an order. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are not in dispute. On October 29, 1987, Richard James Erisoty, the minor child, was born to Sarah Erisoty and James S. Erisoty, the plaintiff. Sarah Erisoty and the plaintiff had been married on August 26, 1978, and continued to be married until April 21, 1989. On January 17, 1989, Willie Edward Harrison filed an action for paternity as to the minor child in the Probate Court for the district of East Hartford pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-172a. The claim was contested. On motion by Harrison, the Probate Court issued the following order on April 3,1989: “[Tjhat [Harrison], [the] husband of the mother and the minor child submit to blood grouping tests as soon as can be arranged and that the results thereof be made available to counsel for all parties in interest. All expenses of said testing shall be paid by [Harrison].

“Upon receipt of said results by all counsel of record, this Court shall schedule a supplemental hearing to allow counsel the opportunity to present further evidence solely with regard to said blood tests and solely in accordance with evidentiary law.”

On May 3,1989, the plaintiff, claiming to be aggrieved, appealed from this order to the Superior Court for the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain pursuant to § 45-288. The plaintiff alleged in his reasons of appeal that: (1) the birth certificate of Richard James Erisoty shows the mother’s maiden name to be Sarah Ruth Wheeler and the father’s name to be James Steven Erisoty; (2) both Sarah Erisoty and the plaintiff testified that at and around the presumed time of conception of Richard James Erisoty, there was physical access between them; (3) Sarah Erisoty and the plaintiff have acknowledged their parenthood of Richard James Erisoty; and (4) in the dissolution of marriage action between James Erisoty and Sarah Erisoty, the Superior Court found Richard James Erisoty to be the lawful issue of the parties. The salient grounds of the plaintiff’s appeal were set forth as follows: (1) “The tests ordered by the Probate Court would not be determinative of the parentage of the plaintiff or [Harrison], and would be a useless imposition on the plaintiff and the child”; and (2) “[t]he Probate Court should not have granted standing to [Harrison] to challenge the legitimacy of said child, but should have dismissed his petition before entering the order appealed from.”

On November 17, 1989, Harrison moved to dismiss the Superior Court action on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, arguing that the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the order of the Probate Court since the order did not adversely affect his rights. Harrison also claimed that the order was not a final judgment from which an appeal might be taken. The court implicitly found that the order was appealable, apart from any final judgment analysis, pursuant to the provisions of § 45-288, which provides for a right of appeal to “[a]ny person aggrieved by any order, denial or decree of a court of probate in any matter.” (Emphasis added.) The court then considered the issue of aggrievement, relying primarily on the statement in Maloney v. Taplin, 154 Conn. 247, 250, 224 A.2d 731 (1966), that “[t]he qualifying interest [to establish aggrievement] may be a direct pecuniary one, or it may consist of an injurious effect upon some legally protected right or status of the appellant . . . .’’The court found that the plaintiff had not at that point “been subjected to a decision having an adverse pecuniary effect upon him nor ha[d] he had invaded any legally protected right or status by the order of the court.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the court found no aggrievement and granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiff appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court. We subsequently transferred the case to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023.

The plaintiff has presented the following two issues in this appeal: (1) whether the trial court properly concluded that the order of the Probate Court requiring Harrison, the plaintiff and the minor child to submit to blood grouping tests did not affect a legally protected right or status of the plaintiff and that he was, therefore, not aggrieved by the order; and (2) whether the court properly concluded that the order was not a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken to the Superior Court.

Because the finality of the judgment, if that were indeed an issue, would implicate our subject matter jurisdiction, we first address the plaintiff’s second issue. The plaintiff asserts that the trial court dismissed his appeal, in part, for lack of a final judgment. This assertion is mistaken for two reasons. First, the ruling by the trial court was not adverse to the plaintiff in this respect, but rather in his favor. Although the trial court merely quoted that part of § 45-288 which gave a right to appeal to “[a]ny person aggrieved by any order, denial or decree of a court of probate in any matter” (emphasis in original), it is clear that the court, by then proceeding to consider aggrievement, implicitly found the disputed order to be properly appealable. Given the plain meaning of § 45-288, we do not see how the court could have ruled otherwise.

Second, the often thorny issue as to whether a judgment of the Superior Court is a final judgment for purposes of appeal; see General Statutes § 52-268 (final judgment required to prosecute appeal from the Superior Court); is not involved in an appeal from a judgment of a Probate Court. As the trial court implicitly recognized, since the right of appeal at issue is available under § 45-288 to “[a]ny person aggrieved by any order, denial or decree of a court of probate in any matter,” the section does not require a final judgment.

We are thus left with the sole issue of aggrievement. Before deciding this issue we point out what we are not deciding. This case comes to this court on appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court granting a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs appeal to that court from the order of the Probate Court. Because it is not an appeal of the merits of the Probate Court order, we do not herein determine the propriety of such an order.

We begin our inquiry with a succinct summary of the law on this subject. ‘Tn order to prosecute an appeal from a Probate Court, it is necessary that the plaintiff be aggrieved within the meaning of § 45-288. Aggrievement as a concept of standing is a practical and functional one designed to assure that only those with a genuine and legitimate interest can appeal an order of the Probate Court. ‘[T]he frequent statement that a plaintiff, to be aggrieved, must have a pecuniary interest; 160 Conn. 463, 280 A.2d 143 (1971)]; Williams v. Houck, 143 Conn. 433, 437, 123 A.2d 177 [1956]; Ciglar v. Finkelstone, 142 Conn. 432, 434, 114 A.2d 925 [1955]; Weidlich v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 139 Conn. 652, 656, 96 A.2d 547 [1953]; is too narrow to deal with the various types of cases presented by appeals from probate. See O’Leary v. McGuinness, 140 Conn. 80, 98 A.2d 660 [1953]; Spencer’s Appeal, 122 Conn. 327, 332-33, 188 A. 881 [1937]; ... 1 Locke & Kohn, . . . [Conn. Probate Practice] § 188.’ Hartford Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Gazda, 165 Conn. 478, 338 A.2d 497 [1973]. Tn determining whether an appellant has a grievance . . . the question is whether there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest which he has in the estate has been adversely affected.’ O’Leary v. McGuinness, [supra, 83].” Gaucher v. Estate of Camp, 167 Conn. 396, 400-401, 355 A.2d 303 (1974).

“ ‘The issue of whether [a party] was aggrieved under § 45-288 by the actions of the Probate Court is to be distinguished from the question of whether, on a review of the merits, it will prevail. To examine the present issue the two parts of aggrievement need to be considered: (1) the nature of the appellant’s interest, and (2) the adverse effect, if any, of the Probate Court’s decision on that interest.’ Hartford Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Gazda, [supra, 485].” Baskin’s Appeal from Probate, 194 Conn. 635, 638, 484 A.2d 934 (1984).

The plaintiff argues that the order to submit to a blood grouping test adversely affects (1) his interest in the security of his person protected by the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and the constitution of Connecticut, article first, § 7, and (2) his presumptive parental status, and his parental rights protected by the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. Harrison counters that the plaintiff has not yet been affected by the judgment of the Probate Court.

We dispose summarily of Harrison’s argument that the plaintiff has not been aggrieved, because the blood taking has not yet occurred. As previously stated, the question of whether one has been aggrieved by an order of the Probate Court is whether there is a possibility that some legally protected interest which he has in the estate has been adversely affected. O’Leary v. McGuinness, supra, 83. Further, if Harrison’s argument were sound, no executory order of a Probate Court could ever be appealed since the claimed injury to the appellant’s legally protected interest would have not yet occurred.

Although the plaintiffs claim does not concern legally protected interests that he has in the estate; see O’Leary v. McGuinness, supra, 83; we decline to interpret § 45-288 so narrowly as to limit its applicability solely to cases involving an adverse effect upon a direct interest in the probate estate. This court has held that “[wjhile one who bids upon the property of an estate offered for sale has no interest in the property itself, he does have an interest in the proceedings employed by the court to approve the sale. It may be that a party appealing from an order of a probate court often has an interest in the estate itself, as a distributee or a creditor. But [General Statutes] § 45-293 [requiring an appellant from probate to state his interest on the motion for appeal] does not require the interest involved to be solely one in the estate itself.” Merrimac Associates, Inc. v. DiSesa, 180 Conn. 511, 517-18, 429 A.2d 967 (1980). Thus, a legally protected interest may derive from the administration of a probate estate. In the instant case, if the plaintiff has a legally protected interest in the proceedings employed by the Probate Court in administration of the minor child’s estate, specifically in not having blood taken from his body, we conclude that this interest is a legally protected interest and, thus, a potential subject of aggrievement within the meaning of § 45-288.

The first legally protected interest that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate is the right to resist an intrusion into his body. The existence of such a legally protected interest is established by Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966). In Schmerber, a police officer directed a physician to take a blood sample from the defendant, who had been arrested for driving while intoxicated, over his objection. Id., 758. The United States Supreme Court held that “compulsory administration of a blood test . . . plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.” Id., 767. The court framed the question as whether the police were justified in requiring Schmerber to submit to the blood test, and whether the means and procedures employed in taking his blood respected relevant fourth amendment standards of reasonableness. Id., 768. The court found that these tests were met and affirmed Schmerber’s conviction of the charge against him. In so doing, the court stated that “[t]he integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value of our society.” Id., 772. This court buttressed this view strongly in State v. Grotton, 180 Conn. 290, 293, 429 A.2d 871 (1980), where we stated that “[a] blood test, the most intrusive of the procedures here involved, does not merely constitute an order of discovery; it also constitutes a search and seizure under the federal and state constitutions.” See also State v. Acquin, 177 Conn. 352, 354, 416 A.2d 1209 (1979).

The underlying premise of these decisions is the principle that a person has interests in human dignity and privacy that are protected by the fourth amendment to the United States constitution; Schmerber v. California, supra, 769-70; State v. Acquin, supra, 355; and that these interests are adversely affected by an order to submit to a blood test. We conclude, therefore, that because the plaintiff’s constitutionally protected interests in human dignity and privacy were adversely affected by the Probate Court order to submit to a blood grouping test, the plaintiff was aggrieved and could properly appeal the order pursuant to § 45-288.

This first strand of an adverse effect on a legally protected interest is to be found in the very act of puncturing the plaintiff’s skin and drawing blood from his body. Since impairment of this legally protected interest is sufficient to sustain the plaintiffs claim of aggrievement, we need not consider to what extent the possibility of adverse effects on his parental status and rights might also sustain his right to appeal the order of the Probate Court.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to set aside the judgment of dismissal and to proceed with the case according to law.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       General Statutes § 45-288 provides in pertinent part: “Any person aggrieved by any order, denial or decree of a court of probate in any matter, unless otherwise specially provided by law, may appeal therefrom to the superior court for the judicial district in which such court of probate is held.”

       General Statutes § 46b-172a provides in pertinent part: “(a) Any person claiming to be the father of a child born out of wedlock may at any time but no later than sixty days after the date of notice under section 45-61d, file a claim for paternity with the court of probate for the district in which either the mother or the child resides, on forms provided by such court.”

       Two Supreme Court cases have involved appeals of a court order requiring a defendant to submit to a blood test in a criminal case. In State v. Acquin, 177 Conn. 352, 416 A.2d 1209 (1979), the court granted the state’s motion for an order directing the defendant to allow the taking of blood from his body. In a per curiam opinion we found error because the “nexus” required between the taking of the blood and the alleged criminal behavior was not clearly established. Id., 355. The issue of final judgment was not raised.
      In State v. Grotton, 180 Conn. 290, 429 A.2d 871 (1980), we decided the final judgment issue not considered in Aequin. In Grotton, we granted the state’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal from an order requiring the defendant to provide specimens of blood, saliva and urine. Id., 295-96. We held that such an order is a discovery order and that “orders relating to discovery do not constitute a final judgment and are not appealable . . . because their initial determination does not so conclude the rights of the appealing party that further proceedings cannot affect those rights.” Id., 292. We stated that “[t]o the extent that our decision in State v. Acquin . . . indicates that an order to obtain nontestimonial evidence may be reviewed on direct appeal, we hereby confine that decision to its facts.” Id., 293.

       The fourth amendment to the United States constitution provides in pertinent part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”

       The constitution of Connecticut, article first, § 7, provides in pertinent part: “The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures . . . .”

       The fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution provides in pertinent part: “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. . . .”


author: Borden, J.

text:
    Joseph T. Gormley, Jr. v. State Employees Retirement Commission
    (14067)
    Peters, C. J., Shea, Covello, Borden and Santaniello, Js.
    Argued October 2—
    decision released November 27, 1990

      Robert A. Whitehead, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Clarine Nardi Riddle, attorney general, and Charles A. Overend, assistant attorney general, for the appellant (defendant).

      Richard J. Seserman, with whom was Joseph T. Gormley, Jr., for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Borden, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court correctly determined that the application to the plaintiff of General Statutes § 51-287 (e), which provides for the suspension of pension benefits to a retired state’s attorney who is receiving benefits under the state’s attorney’s retirement fund (SARF) and who is subsequently appointed a judge, constituted an impermissible retrospective application of that statute in violation of General Statutes § 55-3. The trial court reversed a declaratory ruling of the state employees retirement commission (commission) that suspended the plaintiff’s pension and demanded the return of benefits paid after his appointment as a judge. Because at the time of the plaintiff’s retirement § 51-287 did not require him to choose between retaining his benefits or accepting a judgeship, the court held that the application of § 51-287 (e), enacted after the plaintiff’s retirement but previous to his appointment, constituted the retrospective imposition of a “new obligation” in violation of § 55-3. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, and, pursuant to Practice Book § 4023, we transferred the case to ourselves. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts are undisputed. In 1962, the plaintiff was appointed a per diem assistant state’s attorney and, in 1963, was appointed an assistant state’s attorney for Fairfield county. In 1969, the plaintiff was appointed state’s attorney for that county and thereafter, in 1973, was appointed Connecticut’s chief state’s attorney. From 1962 until his retirement in 1978, the plaintiff contributed 5 percent of his salary to SARF as statutorily mandated. General Statutes § 51-278 (b) (3). SARF is administered and funded separately from the state employees retirement fund (SERF).

In October, 1978, the plaintiff retired and began receiving an actuarially reduced retirement income, having satisfied the statutory requirements of at least ten years of creditable service. See General Statutes § 51-287 (c). At the time of his retirement, § 51-287 (e) was not a part of SARF and, as distinguished from SERF, SARF contained no provision for the suspension of pension rights upon a retiree’s reemployment with the state.

In 1985, the legislature enacted No. 85-517, § 4, of the 1985 Public Acts, which provided: “Any such [state’s] attorney who is retired under this section and who is appointed a judge shall not receive a retirement salary pursuant to this section during the period such retired attorney serves as a judge.” The 1985 public act is now codified as General Statutes § 51-287 (e). In July, 1987, the plaintiff was sworn in as a Superior Court judge, and continued to collect his SARF pension until November, 1988. At that time, the commission, acting pursuant to § 51-287 (e), suspended the plaintiff’s retirement income and demanded repayment of $26,049.18, the amount paid to the plaintiff after his appointment.

The plaintiff sought a declaratory ruling from the commission claiming that his pension income from SARF became a vested contractual or statutory right upon his retirement in 1978, and, therefore, that either § 55-3 or the impairment of contracts clause of article one, § 10, of the constitution of the United States prohibited the application of § 51-287 (e) to him. After a fact-finding hearing, the commission issued a declaratory ruling that, although the plaintiff had acquired statutory rights in SARF, § 51-287 (e) operated to suspend those rights during the time of the plaintiffs appointment.

The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, claiming that the application of § 51-287 (e) to him (1) constituted an impermissible retroactive application of the statute, and (2) impaired vested contractual or statutory rights in his pension in violation of the federal constitution’s contract clause. See footnote 6, supra. The trial court reversed the decision of the commission, concluding that the application of § 51-287 (e) to the plaintiff operated as an impermissible retroactive application of that statute. In view of that conclusion, the court did not address the issue of whether § 51-287 (e) unconstitutionally impaired the vested rights of the plaintiff. This appeal followed.

In enacting § 51-287 (e), the legislature intended to prevent “double-dipping,” the collection by one person of a pension and a salary, both paid by the state. The parties agree that the legislature intended this statute to apply prospectively only. They disagree, however, over whether the application of § 51-287 (e) to the plaintiff constitutes a retrospective application. The commission claims that the application of the statute to the plaintiff was prospective only, because it was the appointment to a judgeship seventeen months after the statute was enacted, and not the retirement and receipt of retirement income seven years prior to the enactment, that triggered the statute. Therefore, according to the commission, no new obligation was being placed upon the plaintiff in violation of § 55-3. The plaintiff claims that because he possessed vested statutory or contractual rights in his pension on retirement, the application of § 51-287 (e) to him after his retirement would impose a “new obligation” in violation of § 55-3, because it would require him to choose between maintaining his pension or accepting the judgeship. We conclude that § 51-287 (e) must be interpreted narrowly so as not to apply to the plaintiff, because to do otherwise would impose a “new obligation” on him in violation of § 55-3.

In describing the application of new legislation to preexisting transactions, § 55-3 provides that “[n]o provision of the general statutes, not previously contained in the statutes of the state, which imposes any new obligation on any person or corporation, shall be construed to have a retrospective effect.” “The ‘obligations’ referred to in the statute are those of substantive law”; Nagle v. Wood, 178 Conn. 180, 186, 423 A.2d 875 (1979); and “ [legislation which limits or increases statutory liability has generally been held to be substantive in nature.” Little v. Ives, 158 Conn. 452, 457, 262 A.2d 174 (1969). “[W]e have uniformly interpreted § 55-3 as a rule of presumed legislative intent that statutes affecting substantive rights shall apply prospectively only.” Darak v. Darak, 210 Conn. 462, 467, 556 A.2d 145 (1989); Westport v. State, 204 Conn. 212, 219, 527 A.2d 1177 (1987). “The legislature only rebuts this presumption when it ‘clearly and unequivocally’ expresses its intent that the legislation shall apply retrospectively.” Darak v. Darak, supra, 468; see also State v. Lizotte, 200 Conn. 734, 741, 517 A.2d 610 (1986).

It is undisputed that prior to the enactment of § 51-287 (e), the plaintiff would have been entitled to collect both his retirement income and a salary upon being appointed a judge. General Statutes (Rev. to 1983) § 51-287; Opinion of the Attorney General, January 30, 1984 (state’s attorney retired under SARF entitled to collect pension and to collect salary once appointed as a judge). The commission does not contend otherwise. The dispositive fact is not that the plaintiff was appointed as a judge seventeen months after that enactment, but that seven years earlier, when he had retired as chief state’s attorney, he was statutorily entitled to receive a pension. See footnote 8, supra. He then began receiving his pension, and it is the provisions of the plan at that time that are controlling on him. The application of § 51-287 (e) would impose upon the plaintiff a new obligation, that of choosing between the continuing receipt of his pension benefits or accepting a judgeship, an obligation “to which he was not subject prior to its passage.” Little v. Ives, supra, 457. The plaintiff’s substantive right to continue to receive his pension regardless of his future employment would be implicated by the imposition of this new obligation. Such an implication would violate the presumed legislative intent embodied in § 55-3, unless the legislature “clearly and unequivocally” indicated that the statute was to apply retrospectively. Darak v. Darak, supra. We can find no such clear and unequivocal indication that the legislature intended § 51-287 (e) to apply to persons already collecting SARF retirement benefits. Neither the statute’s language nor its legislative history; see footnote 7, supra; provides that clarity or lack of equivocation.

The commission argues that two cases, Nagle v. Wood, supra, 188, and Massa v. Nastri, 125 Conn. 144, 148, 3 A.2d 839 (1939), nevertheless support its claim that the statute is being applied prospectively to the plaintiff. These cases are distinguishable.

In Massa v. Nastri, supra, the court addressed whether a statute allowing a guest passenger to recover for personal injuries where the driver was a negligent operator, as opposed to a heedless or reckless operator, could be applied to a driver who had negligently injured a party prior to the statute’s passage. The court determined that the defendant’s legal exemption from a demand of another was as much of a vested property interest as was the plaintiff’s cause of action. Id., 148. The court also held that to allow the plaintiff a cause of action against the defendant for mere negligence, when at the time of the accident the defendant could be held liable only for heedless or reckless conduct, constituted the imposition of “an unexpected liability that if known might have caused those concerned to avoid it”; id.; an impermissible result because the legislature did not clearly provide for such a retroactive interpretation. Id.

To support its claim that § 51-287 (e) is not being applied retrospectively to the plaintiff, the commission relies upon the court’s reference to “an unexpected liability” that could have been avoided. The commission asserts that if § 51-287 (e) were in effect at the time of the plaintiff’s retirement, he could not have taken any other action to avoid its application, and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot demonstrate “an unexpected liability.” This argument, however, is based upon a selective reading of Massa v. Nastri, supra. In that case the court also stated that “ ‘[l]aws which create new obligations . . . because of past transactions, have been universally reprobated ....’” Id., 148. The court in Massa was simply applying to those particular facts the test of determining retroactivity of statutes by looking for an “unexpected liability” that could have been avoided. In this case, however, the statute would be applied retrospectively to the plaintiff because he would be required to choose between his pension or his salary as a judge, an obligation to which he was not subject prior to the passage of § 51-287 (e).

The commission also relies upon Nagle v. Wood, supra. That case involved an amendment to General Statutes § 45-274 allowing illegitimate children to inherit from their natural father if paternity was adjudicated by a court or if the father acknowledged paternity in writing under oath, thereby expanding prior law, which prohibited illegitimate children from inheriting from the father unless the father later married the mother. Id., 184. The court, relying on the general rule that laws providing for future descent of property are prospective; id., 187; held that the amendment was not retrospective because it “related to future inheritances by illegitimate children and it conferred or took away no present right.” Id.

The commission argues that, like the amendment to § 45-274 in Nagle, the enactment of § 51-287 (e) in this case took away no present right from the plaintiff and related only to the effect on the plaintiffs retirement benefits by a future judicial appointment. The commission also attempts to analogize the plaintiff in this case to hypothetical legitimate children in Nagle, arguing that the plaintiff, like those children, lost no present right to future benefits by the enactment of § 51-287 (e). The commission’s reliance is misplaced.

Unlike the statutory amendment in Nagle, § 51-287 (e) did take áway a right that the plaintiff possessed—a right to continue to receive his pension benefits regardless of his future employment. It proves too much to say, as the commission’s argument suggests, that a statute suspending pension benefits that one is already receiving has no retrospective effect simply because that suspension will occur upon the happening of a future event. It takes little imagination to recognize that such a rule would set such benefits down a slippery slope that would undermine legitimate and settled expectations. Our case law does not go that far, and we decline to do so in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       General Statutes § 51-287 (e) provides: “Any such attorney who is retired under this section and who is appointed a judge shall not receive a retirement salary pursuant to this section during the period such retired attorney serves as a judge.”

       General Statutes § 55-3 provides: “limitation of effect of certain acts. No provision of the general statutes, not previously contained in the statutes of the state, which imposes any new obligation on any person or corporation, shall be construed to have a retrospective effect.”

       General Statutes § 51-278 (b) (3) provides: “Each state’s attorney who, on June 30,1973, was included in the provisions of sections 51-49, 51-287 and 51-288 may elect to continue to be so included and, each state’s attorney, incumbent on July 1,1978, who was an assistant state’s attorney, chief prosecuting attorney or deputy chief prosecuting attorney on June 30,1973, may elect to be included in sections 51-49, 51-287 and 51-288, and, in each such case, the comptroller shall deduct from his salary five per cent thereof as contributions for the purposes of sections 51-49, 51-287 and 51-288, provided any person who has so elected may thereafter elect to participate in chapter 66 and thereupon his past contributions to the state’s attorneys’ retirement fund shall be transferred to the state employees retirement fund and he shall be credited with all prior service. All other persons appointed under the provisions of this section shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 66.”

       At the time of the plaintiffs retirement, General Statutes § 51-287 provided: “If any such attorney resigns or is removed from office before his retirement under this section, he shall be entitled to the return of all contributions made by him under section 51-278, without interest thereon, except that, if such attorney has completed at least ten years of service creditable under this section, he may, at his option, elect instead to receive a retirement income on a reduced actuarial basis, as determined by the comptroller.”
      That provision was later labeled § 51-287 (c) by Public Acts 1982, No. 82-248, § 143.

       SERF has contained a provision since 1965 preventing its participants who have retired from a state position and who are receiving a pension from collecting both a salary and pension benefits upon securing another state position. See No. 504 of the 1965 Public Acts, codified as General Statutes § 5-164a (c). General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 5-164a (c) provides: “No member reemployed under this section or under section 5-164 or elected to serve in the general assembly or otherwise reentering state service shall receive a retirement income during his reemployment or other state service except (1) if his services as an employee are rendered for not more than ninety working days in any one calendar year, provided that any member reemployed for a period of more than ninety working days in one calendar year shall reimburse the state retirement fund for retirement income payments received during such ninety working days; or (2) if his services are as a member of the general assembly, his retirement income payments shall not be suspended.”
      Until the enactment of No. 85-517, § 4, of the 1985 Public Acts, no com- • parable provision existed in SARF.

       The constitution of the United States, article one, § 10, provides in pertinent part: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

       The legislative history behind No. 85-517, § 4, of the 1985 Public Acts provides in pertinent part:
      “Senator [Thomas F.] Upson: Does this apply to people who are already in the system, or is this a prospective section?
      “Senator Richard Johnson: My feeling is that this section is a prospective one, that is, it applies to those who will be appointed.” 28 S. Proc., Pt. 15, 1985 Sess., pp. 5019-20.
      While this exchange indicates that the legislature intended the statute to apply prospectively, that is, to those appointed as judges in the future, it sheds little light on whether those people “already in the system” described individuals who were still employed as state’s attorneys and who had not yet become eligible for a pension, individuals who were presently receiving pension benefits under the retirement plan, or both.

       The commission also raised an entirely new claim at oral argument in this court, namely, that pursuant to Pineman v. Oechslin, 195 Conn. 405, 416, 488 A.2d 803 (1985), the plaintiff did not possess constitutionally protected vested rights to the pension, and, therefore, that the application of General Statutes § 51-287 (e) was not retrospective. This claim was an attempt to revive on appeal the issue that the trial court did not decide, namely, whether the plaintiff had vested contractual rights that were constitutionally protected. Nonetheless, in its brief the commission refers to “the plaintiff’s rights vested in the State’s Attorney’s Retirement Fund.” (Emphasis added.) Because the commission failed to brief the issue of vested rights in this court, however, we consider this claim abandoned. State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 178, 448 A.2d 837 (1982); Pastir v. Bielski, 174 Conn. 193, 384 A.2d 367 (1978).
      In any event, it is difficult to see how Pineman would help the commission, since under Pineman state “employees have statutory rights to retirement benefits once they satisfy the eligibility requirements of the [retirement] act by becoming eligible to receive benefits.” (Emphasis added.) Pineman v. Oechslin, supra, 416. Thus, the plaintiff, whom the court found to have satisfied those requirements and who was receiving pension benefits, obviously had acquired statutory rights to his pension. The commission does not claim that the state may retrospectively diminish statutory pension benefits that a former state employee is collecting simply because they are statutory, rather than contractual, in nature. Indeed, the entire thrust of the commission’s brief is that there is no retroactivity effected by § 51-287 (e), not that the issue of retroactivity vel non depends on the source of the plaintiff’s pension benefits.

       Although the plaintiff also argued in the trial court that the application to him of General Statutes § 51-287 (e) would violate article one, § 10, of the United States constitution, in light of the trial court’s decision, he has not reasserted that claim in this court.


author: Glass, J.

text:
    Jeffrey S. Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., et al.
    (13995)
    Shea, Callahan, Glass, Hull and Borden, Js.
    Argued October 5—
    decision released December 4, 1990

      Jason M. Dodge, for the appellant (Acme Chaston).

      Robert B. Yules, with whom, on the brief, was William J. Shea, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Glass, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the content of an employee’s notice to his employer concerning the employee’s institution of an action against third party tortfeasors to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in the course of employment was sufficient to comply with General Statutes § 31-293. The trial court determined that the content of the employee’s notice fulfilled the requirements of § 31-293, and, as a consequence, the employer’s failure to intervene in the third party action within thirty days of its receipt of the employee’s notice, as also required by the statute, caused its right of action against the third party tortfeasors to abate. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff employee, Jeffrey Winslow, sustained personal injuries on September 15, 1986, while operating allegedly defective equipment in the course of his employment. As a result of his injuries, Winslow’s employer, Acme Chaston, paid him workers’ compensation benefits. Subsequently, Winslow instituted an action against several third party tortfeasors, including the named defendant, seeking damages for his personal injuries. The facts relevant to Winslow’s third party action are set forth in our opinion reported in Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 212 Conn. 462, 562 A.2d 517 (1989). A brief account of the facts and procedural history pertinent to the issue raised for our present determination follows.

On October 28,1988, Acme Chaston received a certified letter from an attorney whose letterhead indicated that he was a member of a Connecticut law firm. The letter also indicated that Winslow was a client of the firm, and that a copy of the letter and its enclosure had been mailed to Winslow. The letter stated: “Enclosed please find a copy of the third-party action of Jeffrey Winslow against Lewis-Shepard, Inc. et al. The writ is returnable to the Judicial District of Wind-ham at Putnam at 155 Church Street, Putnam, Connecticut.” A copy of the complaint filed by Winslow in the third party action was enclosed with the letter. In the ninth paragraph of the complaint, Winslow was identified as an employee of Acme Chaston who had been injured while working for Acme Chaston. Allegations of the time, date, place and cause of Winslow’s injuries were also contained in the complaint.

On November 30,1988, thirty-three days after receiving Winslow’s letter and the copy of his complaint, Acme Chaston moved to intervene as a party plaintiff in the third party action. Winslow objected, arguing that, by failing to intervene within thirty days of the date it had received notice of the action as required by General Statutes § 31-293, Acme Chaston forfeited its right to intervene in the action. After a hearing, the trial court denied Acme Chaston’s motion to intervene. Acme Chaston appealed to the Appellate Court, and thereafter, we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023. The sole claim of Acme Chaston before this court is that its motion to intervene in Winslow’s third party action was timely filed because Winslow did not provide notice in accordance with the terms of § 31-293.

I

As a preliminary matter, we note that the trial court’s order denying Acme Chaston’s motion to intervene, while interlocutory, is nonetheless a final judgment for purposes of appeal. The test for determining whether an order denying a motion to intervene constitutes a final judgment is whether the would-be intervenor can make “a colorable claim to intervention as a matter of right.” Ricard v. Stanadyne, Inc., 181 Conn. 321, 322 n.1, 435 A.2d 352 (1980); Common Condominium Assns., Inc. v. Common Associates, 5 Conn. App. 288, 291, 497 A.2d 780 (1985). In this case, Acme Chaston has made a colorable claim to intervention as a matter of right because § 31-293 specifically grants an employer who has paid workers’ compensation benefits to an employee the right to join as a party plaintiff in the employee’s action against third party tortfeasors. See Ricard v. Stanadyne, Inc., supra, 323. Accordingly, Acme Chaston has appealed from a final judgment, and we will address its appeal on the merits.

II

In claiming that Winslow’s letter and the copy of his complaint did not constitute notice in accordance with the terms of § 31-293, Acme Chaston primarily attacks Winslow’s failure to apprise it that § 31-293 granted Acme Chaston the right to intervene in the third party-action, and that this right would abate unless exercised within thirty days. Acme Chaston also argues that the notice was deficient because Winslow neglected to include in his letter “pertinent facts” allegedly necessary for Acme Chaston to exercise its right to intervene in a timely fashion, such as reference to Winslow’s employment by Acme Chaston, the workers’ compensation claim involved and the date of the injury. We disagree.

“General Statutes § 31-293 grants to an employer who has paid worker’s compensation a right to join as a party plaintiff in actions by employees against third party tortfeasors; Robinson v. Faulkner, 163 Conn. 365, 377, 306 A.2d 857 (1972); provided that the right is exercised in a timely fashion. Olszewski v. State Employees’ Retirement Commission, 144 Conn. 322, 325, 130 A.2d 801 (1957).” Ricard v. Stanadyne, Inc., supra, 323. An employer who does not receive notice from an employee concerning the institution of a third party action in accordance with § 31-293 “[cannot] be barred from intervening by the passage of the time which this statute prescribes, because, until notice is given, the time does not begin to run.” Lakewood Metal Products, Inc. v. Capital Machine & Switch Co., 154 Conn. 708, 710, 226 A.2d 392 (1967).

In determining what particular information concerning the institution of a third party action must be furnished in order to provide notice that satisfies the requirements of § 31-293, we first look to the language employed by the legislature in the statute. King v. Board of Education, 203 Conn. 324, 332, 524 A.2d 1131 (1987). We are mindful when inspecting the statutory text that “the intent of the legislature is to be found not in what it meant to say but in what it did say.” Federal Aviation Administration v. Administrator, 196 Conn. 546, 549-50, 494 A.2d 564 (1985). “When the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, we need look no further than the words themselves because we assume that the language expresses the legislature’s intent.” State v. White, 204 Conn. 410, 421, 528 A.2d 811 (1987).

In our view, § 31-293 unambiguously prescribes the necessary ingredients of notice. Section 31-293 provides in pertinent part: “If either such employee or such employer brings such action against such third person, he shall forthwith notify the other, in writing, by personal presentation or by registered or certified mail, of such fact and of the name of the court to which the writ is returnable, and such other may join as a party plaintiff in such action within thirty days after such notification, and, if such other fails to join as a party plaintiff, his right of action against such third person shall abate. . . .” Clearly, the only objects of the transitive verb “notify” contained in § 31-293 are “of such fact,” and “of the name of the court to which the writ is returnable.” The word “such” in the object “of such fact” is an adjective, referring back to the last antecedent, “brings such action against such third person.” See LaProvidenza v. State Employees’Retirement Commission, 178 Conn. 23, 27, 420 A.2d 905 (1979). Thus, under § 31-293, an employee or employer who brings a third party action must simply notify the other of two facts: (1) the fact that the action has been brought; and (2) the name of the court to which the writ in the action is returnable. The plain terms of the statute require no more.

Acme Chaston concedes that Winslow’s letter and the copy of his complaint notified it of the fact that Winslow had brought a third party action, and of the name of the court to which the writ in that action was returnable. Nonetheless, Acme Chaston asserts that notice in accordance with the terms of § 31-293 must also include advice regarding intervention rights as well as the legal consequences of untimely intervention. Acme Chaston would essentially have us treat as additional objects of the transitive verb “notify” the following clauses in § 31-293: “such other may join as a party plaintiff in such action within thirty days” and “if such other fails to join as a party plaintiff, his right of action against such third person shall abate.”

An examination of the structure of § 31-293 reveals, however, that these independent clauses refer to a legal subject distinct from the subject which is burdened with the duty to notify. They create in “such other,” the person who has not brought a third party action, the right to “join” in that action within a certain time period. In the portion of the statute that refers to the person who has brought the action and must provide notice to the other, there is no indication that such notice must include information regarding the other’s right to intervene, or the time period in which it must be exercised. See generally J. Sutherland, Statutory Construction (4th Ed. Sands 1984) §§ 47.26, 21.07, 21.08. Consequently, we hold that notice in compliance with § 31-293 need not include information regarding the right to intervene and the legal consequences of a failure to intervene within the statutory time period.

In addition, there is no indication in § 31-293 that an employee must notify his employer of the compensation claim to which his third party action pertains, or of the date he was injured. We therefore reject Acme Chaston’s contention that a notice omitting these facts is defective under § 31-293. The legislature’s specific statement that notice must be given only of certain facts “connotes the legislative intent to exclude that which is not specifically stated.” State v. Kish, 186 Conn. 757, 765, 443 A.2d 1274 (1982); see generally 2A J. Sutherland, supra, § 47.23. Moreover, “[i]t is not for this court to impose obligations not intended by the legislature.” Doe v. Institute of Living, Inc., 175 Conn. 49, 65, 392 A.2d 491 (1978). “The legislature is supreme in the area of legislation, and courts must apply statutory enactments according to their plain terms.” Federal Aviation Administration v. Administrator, supra, 550. Accordingly, we cannot read additional notice obligations into the terms of § 31-293 merely because Acme Chaston deems notice of particular facts necessary for it to exercise its right to intervene in a timely fashion. Accord Johnson v. Manson, 196 Conn. 309, 315, 493 A.2d 846 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1063, 106 S. Ct. 813, 88 L. Ed. 2d 787 (1986).

Since we have concluded that § 31-293 required that Winslow notify Acme Chaston of the fact that he had brought a third party action and of the court to which the writ in that action was returnable, and since Acme Chaston concedes that Winslow’s letter and the copy of his complaint notified it that Winslow was an employee of Acme Chaston, we hold that Winslow provided Acme Chaston with notice in compliance with § 31-293. Acme Chaston admittedly failed to intervene in the third party action within thirty days of its receipt of Winslow’s letter and the copy of his complaint, and as a result, Acme Chaston’s right of action against the third parties abated, and it consequently “lost any right [it] may have had in [Winslow’s] third party recovery. General Statutes § 31-293; Ricard v. Stanadyne, Inc., [supra, 323]; Olszewski v. State Employees’Retirement Commission, [supra, 325].” Skitromo v. Meriden Yellow Cab Co., 204 Conn. 485, 489, 528 A.2d 826 (1987). Therefore, we hold that the trial court properly denied Acme Chaston’s motion to intervene in the third party action.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       General Statutes § 31-293 provides in pertinent part: “liability of third persons to employer and employee, limitations on liability of architects and engineers, (a) When any injury for which compensation is payable under the provisions of this chapter has been sustained under circumstances creating in some other person than the employer a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto, the injured employee may claim compensation under the provisions of this chapter, but the payment or award of compensation shall not affect the claim or right of action of such injured employee against such other person, but such injured employee may proceed at law against such person to recover damages for such injury; and any employer having paid, or having become obligated to pay, compensation under the provisions of this chapter may bring an action against such other person to recover any amount that he has paid or has become obligated to pay as compensation to such injured employee. If either such employee or such employer brings such action against such third person, he shall forthwith notify the other, in writing, by personal presentation or by registered or certified mail, of such fact and of the name of the court to which the writ is returnable, and such other may join as a party plaintiff in such action within thirty days after such notification, and, if such other fails to join as a party plaintiff, his right of action against such third person shall abate. ...”

       As we have noted, the copy of Winslow’s complaint accompanying his letter to Acme Chaston contained an allegation that he had been employed by Acme Chaston at the time of his injuries. We need not decide in this case, therefore, whether General Statutes § 31-293 requires that the notice indicate an employment relationship between the person giving notice and its recipient, since this notice plainly contained that information.

       Acme Chaston has directed our attention to several Superior Court decisions that may be construed to support its claim that Winslow’s notice was inadequate. See Alves v. Frederick, Superior Court, judicial district of Bridgeport, Docket No. CV88-0247086 (June 5, 1989); DiBuccio v. Moulton, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. 257018 (August 2, 1988); Goulette v. Houston, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV249326 (May 5,1988). We have reviewed these decisions, none of which were appealed to this court, and to the extent that they construe General Statutes § 31-293 to require more extensive notice than we indicate here, we disapprove of them.