Acampora v. Warner
| Decision Date | 01 June 1917 |
| Citation | 101 A. 332,91 Conn. 586 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ACAMPORA v. WARNER. |
Appeal from City Court of New Haven; John R. Booth, Judge.
Action by Raphael Acampora against Hubert E. Warner, Jr. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.
Henry W. Stowell, of New Haven, for appellant. Arthur C. Graves and Robert J. Woodruff, both of New Haven, for appellee.
On January 5, 1913, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the court of common pleas for New Haven county for $327. An execution was issued upon this judgment on January 31, 1913, and a deputy sheriff levied upon a certain automobile belonging to the defendant and took it into his possession. The defendant desired to use the automobile in his business, and requested the plaintiff's attorney to accept as temporary security for the payment of the judgment a note and mortgage for $327 upon two pieces of real estate of which the defendant was the record owner. The lien upon the automobile was then released. The plaintiff was not present when the defendant offered his note as security for the judgment, but the plaintiff's attorney accepted this note and mortgage with the distinct understanding that they were received as temporary security only for the payment of the judgment. The defendant represented to the plaintiff's attorney that he intended to settle this judgment within a short time, and merely gave the note and mortgage temporarily. At the time of giving this mortgage, the defendant grossly magnified the value of the mortgaged property, and represented to the plaintiffs attorney that one piece represented in the mortgage was worth at least $4,500, and was mortgaged for only $2,500, and that the other piece was worth $3,500, and was mortgaged for only $1,700. As a matter of fact, both of these pieces of real estate were worth less than the first mortgages upon them, and the defendant's interest in both was worthless. After failing to keep many promises to pay the judgment made by the defendant, the plaintiff on February 24, 1913, brought foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage, and on March 21, 1913, obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure thereon. On or about the date of final judgment in the foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiff was himself foreclosed by the holders of prior mortgages, and the plaintiff failed to realize anything upon his judgment debt against the defendant. No deficiency judgment was asked for or taken in the foreclosure suit. The defendant contended that the judgment of foreclosure against the defendant, upon the mortgage, operated ipso facto as an extinguishment of the judgment debt.
Prior to 1833, the foreclosure of a mortgage operated as a bar to any subsequent action on a mortgage note. Chapter 18 of the Public Acts of 1833 removed this bar, and ever since then the right of a mortgagee to a deficiency judgment after strict foreclosure has always been coupled, in this state, with some provision for fixing the actual value of the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Slade
... ... actual value of the property as of the date of the ... foreclosure, as a basis of valuation for determining any ... claimed deficiency. Acampora v. Warner, 91 Conn ... 586, 588, 101 A. 332. The 1833 statute provided for the ... determination of this value by the court before which the ... ...
-
City Lumber Co. of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Murphy
... ... 24] the value of ... the mortgaged property, had been brought and were pending, ... and in Bergin v. Robbins, also in Acampora v ... Warner, 91 Conn. 586, 101 A. 332, although the present ... point was not there involved, before the law days under his ... foreclosure ... ...
-
Cronin v. Gager-Crawford Co.
...set up is not invoked, the mortgagee may recover the difference between the debt and the actual value of the property. Acampora v. Warner, 91 Conn. 586, 588, 101 A. 332; Bergin v. Robbins, 109 Conn. 329, 333, A. 724. Accordingly, where the provisions of § 1313e are not invoked under a stric......
-
First Bank v. Simpson
...Realty Co. v. House, 120 Conn. 661, 670, 183 A. 9 (1936); Cion v. Schupack, 102 Conn. 644, 648, 129 A. 854 (1925); Acampora v. Warner, 91 Conn. 586, 588, 101 A. 332 (1917). In this light, it is entirely logical that the legislature intended to afford to the mortgagor the right to trigger th......