Page 33 - CLT083120
P. 33
CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 31, 2020 ¦ 33
REAL ESTATE • CIVIL PROCEDURE Inspections revealed the presence of fuel oil in the
soil and groundwater of plaintiff’s property had
originated from an underground oil tank that
Court Finds Ruling on Priority of had been removed from the defendant’s property.
Interest can be Appealed Prior to Although defendants paid for some environmen-
Foreclosure Sale tal remediation of plaintiff’s property pursuant
to a contract, they refused to pay for additional
CASE: Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC remediation despite recommendation by the De-
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court partment of Energy and Environmental Protec-
DOC. NO.: SC 20182 tion and plaintiff’s consultant. Plaintiff sued de-
COURT OPINION BY: McDonald fendant for damages. During a court trial, the
DATE: May 18, 2020 • PAGES: 14 parties submitted competing expert testimony as
to the cause of the oil contamination. The trial
In 2008 owners purchased the subject property court concluded that defendants proved there
and executed a mortgage in favor of defendant was a secondary source of oil contamination and
Davis. In 2009 owners executed a second mort- therefore rendered judgment in favor of defen-
gage in favor of the plaintiff, who executed a dants. Plaintiff appealed and the court reversed.
title search and found no record of previous The court found that the trial court’s judgment
mortgages. Ownership defaulted on their ob- was improper. It reasoned that there was no cred-
ligation to plaintiff, and plaintiff brought the ible evidence to support the lower court’s finding
present action for foreclosure and a declara- because there was no expert that testified with a
tory judgment that their mortgage was supe- reasonable degree of probability that a second-
rior to defendants. Plaintiff then filed a motion ary source of oil contamination existed beneath
for a judgment of foreclosure by sale, and the plaintiff’s basement, or that possible secondary
court found in favor of the plaintiff on both sources identified by other witnesses were likely
counts and ordered the sale. Prior to the sale, the case of the oil contamination. The court
the Davis defendants appealed, and plaintiff held that even if there was an evidentiary basis
moved to dismiss, arguing the Appellate Court for the court’s finding that there was a second-
lacked jurisdiction until after the foreclosure ary source of contamination, this finding did not
sale had taken place. The Appellate Court legally and logically support the lower court’s
granted plaintiff ’s motion to dismiss, and the ultimate conclusion that plaintiff did not prove
Davis defendants appealed. The court found in that defendants caused contamination beneath
favor of the Davis defendants. The court found his house; the existence of a secondary source of
the order of priority among encumbrances did contamination was entirely unrelated to the ques-
not alter the interest of the parties, and thus tion of whether plaintiff proved that defendants
was not a proper subject for a judgment of were an additional or primary source. There was
foreclosure. The court reversed the decision of no support in the record for the finding that the
the appellate court dismissing the appeal, and defendants had zero responsibility. Therefore, the
remanded for further proceedings.
APPELLATE COURT court reversed the lower court’s judgment.
REAL ESTATE
DAMAGES • ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Court Affirmed Lower Court’s Denial of
Plaintiff’s Request for An Injunction in
Court Reversed Lower Court’s Real Estate Development Lawsuit
Finding That Plaintiff Failed to Prove
Defendants Were Responsible for Soil CASE: Prime Locations of CT, LLC v. Rocky Hill Dev., LLC
Contamination COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 41417
CASE: Crouzet v. First Baptist Church of Stonington COURT OPINION BY: Keller
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court DATE: August 18, 2020 • PAGES: 15
DOC. NO.: AC 42069
COURT OPINION BY: Bright A new declaration provided that each lot owner in
DATE: August 18, 2020 • PAGES: 22 the business park would be a member of an owner’s
association and would receive a vote that was pro-
portional to its percentage ownership in the business
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
