Page 29 - CLT072020
P. 29
CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JULY 20, 2020 ¦ 29
determination. Therefore, the court reversed the Plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on
trial court’s judgment and remanded it with order defendant’s real property after defendant failed to
to dismiss the petitioner’s petition. make a payment on the note for more than eight
years. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion
CONTRACTS for summary judgment as to liability and rendered
a judgment of strict foreclosure. Defendant ap-
pealed, claiming plaintiff’s motion was time barred
Court Reversed Lower Court’s Finding and the trial court failed to consider his special de-
That Defendant Was Liable Under fense. The court affirmed. The court first dismissed
CUTPA Based On Home Improvement defendant’s statute of limitations argument. It held
Act Violation that the statute that defendant cited required that
any action to enforce the underlying debt on a note
must be initiated within six years after the acceler-
CASE: Winakor v. Savalle ated due date in the note. The court noted that that
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42306 this statute applies only to the enforcement of a note
COURT OPINION BY: Prescott and did not bar a mortgage foreclosure action on
DATE: July 07, 2020 • PAGES: 17 the same debt. The court also found that the lower
Plaintiff hired defendant to perform home con- court correctly rejected the defendant’s assertion
struction site work. Over time, it became obvious that the special defense of inequitable conduct ap-
that there were problems with the quality of de- plied. The court determined that defendant failed
fendant’s work and defendant’s ability to complete to sufficiently allege this defense or prove the facts
the project on time. Plaintiff had to hire another alleged; his defense only consisted of an affidavit
contractor at an additional cost. Plaintiff sued de- that included conclusory statements.
fendant for breach of contract and for violation
of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
alleging that the defendant’s work violated the CRIMINAL LAW
Home Improvement Act. The trial court found Court Found Sufficient Evidence To
that defendant had breached the contract by fail-
ing to complete the project on time and had used Support Defendant’s Convictions Of
improper techniques to fulfill the contract. Defen- Assault, Risk Of Injury To A Child, And
dant appealed and the court reversed in part. The
court first held that the trial court improperly de- Unlawful Restraint
termined that defendant was liable under CUTPA
based on its finding the defendant had violated CASE: State of Connecticut v. Morlo M.
the Home Improvement Act. The court noted COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
that defendant’s work was part of new home con- DOC. NO.: AC 41474
struction and therefore was statutorily exempt; its COURT OPINION BY: Alvord
services did not constitute home improvement. DATE: July 07, 2020 • PAGES: 14
However, the court upheld the lower court’s find-
ing that defendant breached the contract. It rea- Defendant dragged his victim downstairs into
soned that the trial court could gauge plaintiff’s the basement by her hair and then kicked,
witnesses’ credibility when concluding that defen- punched, and choked her on three consecutive
dant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s damages. nights while their children were alone upstairs.
The victim suffered bruising, a subconjunctival
hemorrhage in her left eye, a broken rib, and
fluid in her pelvic region. Defendant was con-
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS victed of first degree assault, risk of injury to a
Court Affirmed Judgment Of Strict child, first degree unlawful restraint and witness
tampering. Defendant appealed his convictions
and the court affirmed. The court first rejected
Foreclosure, Finding That Plaintiff’s the defendant’s argument that there was insuf-
Motion Was Not Time Barred ficient evidence to prove that he caused the vic-
tim serious physical injury. The court noted that
CASE: Bank of New York Mellon v. Mangiafico both the victim and a medical center staff mem-
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court ber testified as to the victim’s extensive bruising,
DOC. NO.: AC 42650 her head and face injuries, and that the victim
COURT OPINION BY:
DATE: July 07, 2020 • PAGES: 8 lost consciousness during one attack. The court
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
