Page 34 - CLT083120

34 ¦ AUGUST 31, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

park. Plaintiffs owned four of the seven lots in the The court denied defendant’s motion to dis-
business park. One other lot owner proposed to miss, finding that a lender’s use of an unreg-
sell a lot to defendant DiMaria, who intended to istered trade name did not render the loan in-
use the lot to build a crematorium. Believing that valid, and did not deprive the current holder of
plaintiffs would oppose, several lot owners who the note of standing. Plaintiff sued defendant
held more than 50 percent of the votes executed for foreclosure and reformation of the mort-
an amendment to the declaration that withdrew gage. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing
several lots from the association and recorded the that plaintiff lacked capacity to sue because
amendment on the town land records. DiMaria it was not a legally cognizable entity. For the
then bought one of those lots and sought zoning same reason, the original mortgage and note
approval for the crematorium, which was denied. were void as against public policy. The court
DiMaria and the zoning commission then reached rejected defendant’s claims, which where pre-
a settlement agreement and filed a motion for ap- mised on the allegation that plaintiff was using
proval of the settlement. Plaintiffs filed a motion an unregistered trade name and thus was not
to intervene as of right in the zoning appeal, stat- a legal entity with standing to sue. The prob-
ing that defendants were not members of the as- lem with defendant’s claims was that plaintiff
sociation. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion did not bring this action using a trade name. It
and DiMaria began construction. Plaintiffs then brought this action in its own name. Although
sought to enjoin DiMaria from connecting his lot the original lender issued this loan under an
to the association’s drainage system and also sought unregistered trade name, its failing in that re-
a judgment declaring that the amendment was void gard did not render the loan invalid. Further,
and unenforceable. The court found for defendants the subsequent assignments of the note were
and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed. The valid and effectively transferred all rights to
court held that the lower court properly concluded plaintiff, which is now the holder of the note
that the declaration did not prevent lot owners from and assignee of the mortgage.
withdrawing their lots from the association. There-
fore, DiMaria was not required to be a member EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
of the association when he bought the lot and his
lot was not subject to the declaration’s restrictions. Police Officer’s Racist Tirade Warranted
The court also determined that the trial court did Termination
not abuse its discretion in declining to grant plain-
tiff’s request for an injunction preventing DiMaria CASE: City of Hartford v. Hartford Police Union
from connecting his lot to the association’s drain- COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
age system. The court reasoned that the drainage DOC. NO.: CV19-6112729
system had been created as part of the subdivision COURT OPINION BY: Budzik
approval, before the creation of the declaration and DATE: August 06, 2020 • PAGES: 28
easements created therein, and in DiMaria’s settle- The court granted the City of Hartford’s ap-
ment with the zoning commission, the commission plication to vacate an arbitration award rein-
incorporated a proposal that DiMaria would use stating former Hartford police officer Robert
the drainage system. Lanza. Lanza was terminated by the city for
engaging in a racial epithet-filled tirade after
being arrested for driving while intoxicated
SUPERIOR COURT and interfering with police. During the en-
counter, Lanza stated to the arresting officers,
“You got me locked up like a fucking nigger
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS here? . . . I’m not a fucking nigger! . . .Don’t
treat me like a fucking nigger!” Lanza’s state-
Original Lender’s Use of Unregistered ments were videotaped and lasted for approxi-
Trade Name Did Not Invalidate Loan mately an hour and a half. Lanza challenged
his termination, and the case was referred to
arbitration. The arbitrator reinstated Lanza,
CASE: US Bank Trust, N.A. v. Miller finding no just cause for his termination. The
COURT: Danbury J.D. at Danbury
DOC. NO.: CV19-6030883 city applied to the court to vacate the award.
The court granted the application, find-
COURT OPINION BY: Kowalski ing that the arbitrator’s decision violated an
DATE: August 10, 2020 • PAGES: 15

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune