Page 40 - CLT032221

40 ¦ MARCH 22, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

REAL ESTATE nullify the earlier transfer solely to plaintiff. Plain-
tiff claims unfair trade practices and tortious inter-
ference with contract. Defendant sought summary
Court Denies Motion to Strike for Mortgagee judgment. Defendant argues that there is no evidence
who Forcibly Entered Plaintiff’s Premises of the alleged earlier transfer solely to plaintiff. They
also assert that even if there was an oral transfer, there
CASE: Francis v. CIT Bank is insufficient evidence to establish violation of trade
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford practices or tortious conduct. Furthermore, defen-
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6041892 dant argues that the statute of limitation is three years,
COURT OPINION BY: Povodator and so any claims would be barred. Finally, defen-
DATE: February 25, 2021 • PAGES: 11 dant claims that the cottage constitutes real property

In 2017, plaintiff was the resident of a property of
which defendant was a mortgagee. Defendants en- rather than personal property. Plaintiff died in 2019,
tered the property to winterize the interior, however so stand-in plaintiff asserted that because the cottage
did so by forcibly overcoming the locks causing dam- is personal property, he had standing to assert a quiet
age, and in 2019 plaintiff brought claims for forcible title claim and was exempt from statute of frauds.
entry, detainer, trespass, and successor and assignee Defendant argued that the property was a coopera-
liability. Defendants moved to strike, arguing some tive, meaning it is real property. The court agreed and
claims were untimely as a matter of law as having found the property to be a cooperative as designed
violated the statute of limitations, plaintiff had not under the Common Interest Ownership Act. Plain-
adequately alleged liability for intentional acts, and tiff argued that there was a question of fact regard-
that the rights of the mortgagee included the right ing whether the part performance exception to the
to entry. First, the court found the time limits for the statute of frauds is applicable. Plaintiff also claimed
trespass, forcible entry, and detainer claims had all defendant lacks jurisdiction to challenge title because
expired under Practice Book §10-44, and granted the defendant failed to affirmatively state its answer to
motion to strike these counts. On liability, the court the quiet title claim. The court held that even though
could not conclude that assignment of the mort- defendant did not state its interest in subject property,
gage had occurred on or before the events in ques- its failure to do so did not deprive the court of juris-
tion based on the pleadings, and could not grant the diction. Similarly, the failure did not bar defendant
motion to strike. The defendants argued they were from advancing its position on the title question. The
entitled to enter the premises as mortgagee, however court found that defendant’s pleadings expressed de-
the court found those rights were reserved for “peace- fendant’s interest in the property and position regard-
able” entry. The court noted the alleged complaint ing plaintiff’s claims to title. Further, the court found
was for actions which exceeded that restraint, and de- that defendant had an interest in the issues raised by
nied the motion to strike. The court granted the mo- the quiet title action because they impacted the tort
tion to strike on claims which violated the statute of claims raised by plaintiff. Plaintiff argued that the im-
limitations, but denied the motion on all other claims. provements he made to the cottage and his exclusive

REAL ESTATE • CONTRACTS use of the space constituted part performance and
thus avoided the statute of frauds. The court main-
tained that evidence plaintiff provided was equivocal
Defendant Did Not Tortiously Interfere and plaintiff’s actions could have other reasonable ex-
with Unenforceable Contract planations. Even construing facts in the most favor-
able way to plaintiff, the court did not find that they
CASE: Poglitsch v. Camp Bethel Ass’n, Inc. satisfied past performance. Thus, the court concluded
COURT: Tolland J.D. that plaintiff did not show an ascertainable loss and
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6018358 defendant could not have tortiously interfered with
COURT OPINION BY: Farley an unenforceable contract.
DATE: March 01, 2021 • PAGES: 27
Plaintiff sought a quiet title to cottage on property
owned by defendant. Plaintiff’s mother and deceased TOXIC TORTS • CIVIL PROCEDURE

father owned the cottage. After plaintiff’s father’s Defendant’s Motion to Strike is Denied
death, mother orally transferred property to plaintiff.
A few years later, however, mother, through written CASE: Stevenson v. Ocean 60, LLC
instrument, transferred ownership to plaintiff, plain- COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
tiff’s brother, and herself. Defendant previously had DOC. NO.: CV-19-6096778
not required transfers to be in writing but changed COURT OPINION BY: Kamp
its policy; its new policy was applied retroactively to DATE: March 01, 2021 • PAGES: 5

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune