Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the named Defendant in this action, and others formed a limited liability company (the LLC) to purchase and redevelop certain property. After the LLC acquired the property, Plaintiff guaranteed the payment of two loans from a Bank. In the meantime, Plaintiff, Defendant, and others entered into backstop guarantee agreements that provided protection to Plaintiff in the event he was required to honor his personal guarantees to the Bank. The Bank later commenced foreclosure proceedings against the LLC and Plaintiff as guarantor. The court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, and the Bank sought a deficiency judgment against the Plaintiff. The Bank and Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced the present action against Defendants to enforce the backstop guarantee agreements. The trial court concluded that the backstop guarantee agreements were unenforceable. The Appellate Court reversed. Defendant appealed, claiming that Plaintiff’s tax treatment of the debt that Defendant guaranteed effectively divested Plaintiff of his interest in the debt, and therefore, Plaintiff had no standing to enforce the backstop guarantee agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff had standing to enforce the agreement. View "One Country, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant borrowed $143,065 in two separate loans from a Corporation. The Corporation assigned its interest in the notes to a Bank, which assigned the second loan (loan two) to Plaintiff, a municipality. Defendant had fully paid off the first loan (loan one), but determining that Defendant had defaulted on his payment obligations as to loan two, Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant to foreclose on the property. Defendant counterclaimed, arguing, among other things, that he made an overpayment on loan two. The trial court concluded that Plaintiff was liable to Defendant for the total amount Defendant claimed to have overpaid on loan two to Plaintiff and all other prior holders of the note. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that, in the absence of an express contract provision, “an assignee generally does not assume the original responsibilities of the assignor." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court properly determined that Plaintiff, “as the most recent assignee and current holder of Defendant’s note, could not be held liable to repay Defendant for sums that were overpaid on the note before it was assigned to Plaintiff.” View "Hartford v. McKeever" on Justia Law

Plaintiff property owner sent a letter to a zoning enforcement officer for the Town of Darien, asserting that permits obtained by her adjoining neighbor had been illegally issued. Plaintiff received no response to that letter. Plaintiff filed an application to appeal. The town zoning board of appeals dismissed Plaintiff’s application for lack of a timely appeal and lack of a “decision” from which an appeal could lie. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal from the decision of the board, concluding that substantial evidence supported the board’s determination that the town zoning enforcement officer did not make a decision that could be appealed. Plaintiff appealed, contending that the zoning enforcement officer rendered a decision that could be appealed either because (1) he actually made a determination regarding the merit of the violations alleged in her letter that he declined to communicate, or (2) because town zoning regulations obligated him to respond to or act upon the illegality alleged in Plaintiff's letter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the zoning enforcement officer’s action or inaction with respect to Plaintiff’s letter did not give rise to an independent “decision” from which an appeal to the board would lie.View "Reardon v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals" on Justia Law

A mortgagee (Plaintiff) obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure against the mortgagor of certain property. More than thirty days after the time in which to redeem the subject property had expired, Plaintiff filed a motion for a deficiency judgment seeking to collect money damages from the guarantors of the mortgage note. The guarantors objected to the request for a hearing in damages, arguing that Plaintiff was barred from obtaining any additional remedy from the guarantors under Conn. Gen. Stat. 49-1, under which the foreclosure of a mortgage is a bar to further action against persons liable for the payment of the mortgage debt, note or obligation who are, or may be, made parties to the foreclosure. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment in favor of the guarantors, holding that section 49-1 had no effect on Plaintiff’s ability to recover the remaining unpaid debt from the guarantors because the guarantors were not parties to the foreclosure claim, as the guarantors’ liability arose separately under their guarantee. View "JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Winthrop Props., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff successfully bid at a combined foreclosure sale of real estate and secured party auction of personal property owned by Debtors. Bank held mortgage and security interests in the real and personal property. Auctioneer conducted the auction. After purchasing the property, Plaintiff discovered he would not receive much of the personal property he believed to be in the sale. Plaintiff and the current owner of the property (Plaintiffs) brought this action against Debtors, Bank, and Auctioneer (collectively, Defendants), claiming that Defendants' failure to inform Plaintiffs there were conflicting claims as to the ownership of the property constituted negligence and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), among other causes of action. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs on four of their counts. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court (1) improperly concluded that Defendants had a common-law duty to Plaintiffs to properly identify the personal property that was subject to the secured party sale; and (2) lacked the authority to award nontaxable costs pursuant to CUTPA. View "Ulbrich v. Groth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a series of agreements pursuant to which (1) Defendant agreed to transfer the management and, at the option of Plaintiff, the ownership of two automobile repair shops to Plaintiff; and (2) Plaintiff had the option to purchase the realty on which the shops were located on the condition that Plaintiff was in compliance with the terms of the agreements. When Plaintiff sought to exercise the options, Defendant refused to convey the properties, asserting that Plaintiff had not strictly complied with the agreements’ terms. The trial court determined that Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the options because it had substantially complied with the terms of the agreements. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding (1) the agreements were subject to a strict compliance standard, rather than a substantial compliance standard; and (2) Plaintiff had not strictly complied with the agreements' terms. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court (1) properly applied a standard of substantial rather than strict compliance with the terms of the parties’ agreements in resolving Plaintiffs’ claim; and (2) properly determined that Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the options because it had substantially complied with the terms of the parties’ agreements. View "Pack 2000, Inc. v. Cushman" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff initiated a foreclosure action against defendant. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court had authority to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale and related supplemental judgments after title had passed to the purchaser when a series of errors by the court and the parties caused the purchaser to buy a property that, unbeknownst to him but actually known by the second mortgagee, was in fact subject to a first mortgage that was to be foreclosed shortly thereafter. The court concluded that the appellate court incorrectly determined that the purchaser lacked standing under the circumstances of the present case; defendants inadequately briefed the issue of 17 Ridge Road, LLC's standing to intervene as a defendant and, therefore, the issue was deemed abandoned; and the appellate court correctly determined that the passing of title divested the trial court of jurisdiction to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the appellate court insofar as that court concluded that the trial court lacked authority to open the supplemental judgments. View "Citibank, N.A. v. Lindland" on Justia Law

Defendant executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage deed. Plaintiff subsequently sought to foreclose on the mortgage, claiming it was the holder of the note and mortgage. The trial court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale. Defendant filed an objection to the foreclosure, alleging that because he was no longer in default, Plaintiff did not have standing to foreclose the mortgage. Defendant also requested that the court direct Plaintiff to produce the original note to prove Plaintiff had standing to institute the foreclosure action. The court determined Plaintiff had standing and rendered judgment of strict foreclosure. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Plaintiff had standing to bring this action after Defendant challenged Plaintiff's standing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances, Defendant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on the issue of Plaintiff's standing where the trial court's determination that Plaintiff had standing to commence this action was not in error. Remanded. View "Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff owned real property on a highway. In 2006, the board of selectmen of the town of Lyme (board) concluded that the highway extended through and across Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff brought an administrative appeal in the superior court. The superior court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, concluding (1) it was entitled to consider the appeal in a trial de novo, and therefore, the motion for summary judgment was procedurally appropriate; and (2) the board exceeded its authority by determining the length of the highway rather than its width. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court properly concluded that Plaintiff was entitled to a trial de novo; but (2) the board was statutorily authorized to determine the width of the highway as well as its length. Remanded. View "Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of Town of Lyme" on Justia Law

Signature Properties executed a promissory note payable to JPMorgan Chase Bank. The loan was secured by a mortgage and security interest on Signature's commercial property. The loan was guaranteed by Signature's members (guarantors). JPMorgan later assigned Signature's note and mortgage to LaSalle Bank National Association. A pooling agreement established a mortgage back security wherein LaSalle was identified as trustee and paying agent and J.E. Robert Company as loan servicer for Signature's mortgage loans. After Signature ceased to make payments on the loan, J.E. Robert brought a foreclosure action against Signature. LaSalle subsequently assigned the note to Shaw's New London, and Shaw's was substituted as the plaintiff. The guarantors were then added as defendants. The trial court ordered strict foreclosure of Signature's property and a deficient judgment against the defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that, under the facts of this case, J.E. Robert had standing to institute this foreclosure action in its own name. The Court rejected the remainder of the defendants' claims. View "J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Props., LLC" on Justia Law