Page 27 - CLT081020

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 10, 2020 ¦ 27

first refusal was not a valid contract because the that he had waived appellate review of that claim.
Commission did not have the authority to enter The defendant appealed to the Connecticut Su-
into the agreement. The trial court granted de- preme Court, and the court affirmed. The court
fendant’s motion and plaintiff appealed to the first determined that defendant’s claim of in-
Connecticut Supreme Court. The court reversed. structional error was unpreserved. It reasoned
Plaintiffs argued that even if the trial court prop- the trial court had clearly believed that it had
erly interpreted the statute at issue as to which satisfied defendant’s request to include the in-
agency can lease the lot, there was a genuine issue struction for the defense; the court had provided
of material fact as to whether the defendant owned multiple drafts of its instructions to the attorneys
the relevant shellfishing ground. The court noted and then expressly reviewed the proposed defense
that the relevant statute does not define “owned” instruction during a formal charging conference.
and determined that because the phrase “owned The court held that the trial court and the gov-
by” has taken on a particular meaning in the con- ernment were not given fair notice of the fact that
text of shellfishing grounds, it looked to a range the defendant had an issue with the instruction as
of legal sources for guidance. It then determined to the assault charge. The court then concluded
that pursuant to case law regarding the public that defendant waived his unpreserved claim of
trust doctrine, the defendant only owns the lot at instructional error. It reasoned that not once
issue if it held title to a grant of the private rights during the charging conference or at any time
to the lot. Because the defendant did not offer during the proceedings did defense voice any
any evidence as to whether it had been granted concern about the location, scope, or structure of
these private rights to the lot, there was a genuine the instruction as it related to the assault charge.
issue of material fact as to whether the defendant
“owned” the lot. Therefore, the court determined
the trial court improperly granted defendant’s APPELLATE COURT

motion for summary judgment and reversed.

CRIMINAL APPEALS CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS •
REAL ESTATE
Court Affirmed That Defendant’s Claim
of Instructional Error was Unpreserved Court Rejected Defendants’ Unclean
Hands Defense in Foreclosure Suit
CASE: State of Connecticut v. Ramon A. G.
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court CASE: Chelsea Groton Bank v. Belltown Sports, LLC
DOC. NO.: SC 20358 COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
COURT OPINION BY: Kahn DOC. NO.: AC 42709
DATE: July 28, 2020 • PAGES: 12 COURT OPINION BY: Elgo
Victim had a protective order against the defen- DATE: July 28, 2020 • PAGES: 13
dant but visited with him at his mother’s apart- Plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage
ment. The victim secretly took a pair of car on defendant’s real property. Defendants had
keys that belonged to the defendant’s mother obtained a loan from plaintiff, secured by the
and threw them into a bush on her walk home. mortgage, to build a sports facility. However,
Defendant then began attacking her, kicking her due to construction delays, the facility’s open-
and swinging her around by her backpack. At ing was delayed and did not generate enough
trial, defendant requested an instruction on the income for defendants to meet their mortgage
defense of personal property but did not identify obligations. Plaintiff commenced the foreclo-
the evidentiary basis for that request. The trial sure proceedings and the trial court rendered a
court granted the motion and crafted an instruc- judgment of foreclosure by sale. Defendants ap-
tion that limited the defense to the robbery count. pealed, claiming that the plaintiff ’s certification
Defendant did not object to how the jury instruc- of defendants’ financial status for the business
tion was crafted. Defendant was convicted of as- loan, when plaintiffs knew of defendants’ inabil-
sault in the third degree and several other crimes. ity to make the mortgage payments, constituted
He appealed to the Appellate Court, arguing that misconduct relating to the mortgage. The court
the trial court erroneously declined to extend the affirmed. The court held that defendants did
jury instruction on the defense of personal prop- not meet their burden of proving an evidentiary
erty to assault. The Appellate Court concluded basis to establish the existence of a genuine issue

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune