Taylor v. Taylor

── Taylor v. Taylor ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 05, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Taylor v. Taylor CHARLENE TAYLOR ET AL. v. THADDEUS TAYLOR (AC 48455) Cradle, C. J., and Elgo and Clark, Js. Syllabus The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the plain- tiffs’ application for discharge of a mechanic’s lien. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly granted the plaintiffs’ application on the ground that it was not served on the plaintiffs in the manner required by statute. Held: This court, having reviewed the record of the proceedings before the trial court, the defendant’s brief, and the legal principles that applied to the defendant’s claims on appeal, concluded that those claims were without merit. Argued March 24—officially released May 5, 2026 Procedural History Application to discharge a mechanic’s lien on certain real property owned by the plaintiffs, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Shaikh, J., denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss; thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Chavey, J.; judgment granting the application, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. Thaddeus Taylor, self-represented, the appellant (defendant). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Thaddeus Taylor, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for discharge of a mechanic’s lien filed by the plaintiffs, Charlene Taylor and Elizabeth Taylor. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to dismiss the application to dis- charge the mechanic’s lien wherein he argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to file the application because they were not the owners of the subject property, and (2) granted the plaintiffs’ application to discharge  Taylor v. Taylor the mechanic’s lien on the ground that it was not served on the plaintiffs in the manner required by statute. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to our consideration of this appeal. The plaintiffs are the coadministrators of the estate of Charles Taylor, Jr., who died in March, 2024. The defendant is the brother of Charles Taylor, Jr. On May 21, 2024, the defendant filed a mechanic’s lien on the property that was owned by Charles Taylor, Jr., at 44 Guilford Street in Hartford. On July 19, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an application to