Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 01 February 1966 |
| Citation | 153 Conn. 393,216 A.2d 814 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | The CONNECTICUT NATIONAL BANK v. Loring F. CHAPMAN et al. |
Thaddeus G. Cowell, Jr., Westport, for appellants (defendants nielsen).
Robert S. D'Andrea, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff to reinstate and foreclose a first mortgage dated December 22, 1958, hereinafter referred to as mortgage 1, which was released on December 11, 1961, in connection with another mortgage on the same property taken by the plaintiff on December 11, hereinafter referred to as mortgage 2.
The case was submitted on a stipulation of facts. On December 22, 1958, the defendants Robert H. and Teresa Nielsen, hereinafter referred to as the Nielsens, were the owners of the subject premises, which they mortgaged to the plaintiff to secure a demand note for $19,000 with interest. Thereafter on July 8, 1960, the Nielsens sold the premises to Loring F. and Toy Chapman, hereinafter referred to as the Chapmans, who assumed and agreed to pay mortgage 1, which had then been reduced to $18,205.44, and who gave the Nielsens a second mortgage for $10,500, specifically subject to mortgage 1. It was duly recorded. A short time later, the plaintiff received an insurance endorsement reflecting the change of ownership and containing a mortgage clause setting forth the fact that the Nielsens held a second mortgage on the property. Subsequent insurance policies delivered to the plaintiff also reflected the Nielsens' mortgage. Thus, some department of the plaintiff knew of its existence.
The Chapmans became delinquent in the payment of property taxes to the city of Norwalk and defaulted on payments of mortgage 1. In an endeavor to meet these debts they applied to the plaintiff for an additional loan of $2000 to be secured by a mortgage in the amount of $19,500. The plaintiff requested a local attorney to search the title to the premises, draw and record all papers legally required to secure a $19,500 first mortgage note on the premises and to arrange the closing of this mortgage.
On December 11, 1961, the attorney closed this mortgage and delivered to the Chapmans a release of mortgage 1. The release of mortgage 1 and the recording of mortgage 2 took place on the same day. At the time of the closing the attorney, despite his title search, had no actual knowledge of the existence of the Nielsens' mortgage, and the plaintiff did not request him to obtain a release of in except as its search order requested him to close a first mortgage on the premises. In connection with the closing, the attorney delivered to the plaintiff his certificate of title, which showed title to the premises in the Chapmans subject only to the new first mortgage for $19,500 and to a public utility easement.
Thereafter, the Chapmans paid the plaintiff a total amount of $838.26 on account of mortgage 2. After July 24, 1962, they made no further payments to the plaintiff, and by writ dated February 19, 1963, the plaintiff commenced an action to foreclose mortgage 2 against the Chapmans. Thereafter the plaintiff became aware of the existence of the Nielsens' mortgage, of which it had known but had negligently overlooked. It then amended the writ and complaint, cited in the Nielsens as defendants, and sought reinstatement and foreclosure of mortgage 1.
The Nielsens filed a counterclaim, and their mortgage was foreclosed. The Chapmans having failed to redeem the mortgaged premises, the title thereto vested in the Nielsens by virtue of that judgment, 'subject, however, to being divested by any further order or decree of this Court as might finally settle and determine, in favor of the plaintiff, the issues in this action between the plaintiff and the defendants Robert H. Nielsen and Teresa Nielsen in respect to the priorities of the mortgages held by each of said parties on the mortgaged premises.'
The premises were appraised at $30,000 on September 20, 1961, and at $25,000 on May 24, 1963. It was also stipulated that on March 25, 1964, the fair market value of the subject premises was less than the total of mortgage 1 and the Nielsen mortgage. The Nielsens claim that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff because (1) the plaintiff had actual knowledge of their mortgage; (2) the plaintiff was, together with its attorney, guilty of negligence; and (3) their property rights were impaired.
Equity always looks to the substance of a transaction and not to mere form. There being no intention to release lease a first mortgage lien, its actual release for a momentary period should not in equity permit a subsequent lienor, who has not been prejudiced thereby, to intervene and acquire priority. That equity will act to prevent such a result is clearly established by the great weight of authority. Lomas & Nettleton Co. v. Isacs, 101 Conn. 614, 619, 127 A. 6.
One of the most common mistakes connected with releases of mortgages occurs when the mortgage is renewed and the prior lien is released in ignorance of intervening rights. Ignorance in such a case is regarded in equity as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Virgulak
...AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Sewer Commission , 270 Conn. 409, 417, 853 A.2d 497 (2004) ; see also Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman , 153 Conn. 393, 216 A.2d 814 (1966). "[F]oreclosure is peculiarly an equitable action, and the court may entertain such questions as are necessary to be......
-
New York Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. Fisher
... ... Everett FISHER et al ... Supreme Court of Connecticut ... Argued June 12, 1980 ... Decided Aug. 19, 1980 ... 477, 491-92, 234 A.2d 825 (1967); Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393, 399, 216 A.2d 814 (1966); Jenkins v. Indemnity ... ...
-
Fellows v. Martin, 14055
...of equity may grant relief from a forfeiture when the defendant's omission was caused by an error of law. Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393, 398, 216 A.2d 814 (1966); Bronson v. Leibold, 87 Conn. 293, 87 A. 979 (1913) (the court granted the defendant tenant's equitable cou......
-
Reclaimant Corp. v. Deutsch
...unjust, equitable or inequitable, conscionable or unconscionable" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman , 153 Conn. 393, 399, 216 A.2d 814 (1966) (noting that unjust enrichment "is essentially equitable," and, in order to recover in restitution under tha......
-
Equitable Subrogation in the Context of Interests in Real Property: the Basics and the Areas Needing Authoritative Clarification
...very frequently fore-closes its use. _____________________ Footnotes: * Of the Hartford Bar. 1. See Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393, 216 A.2d 814 (1966). 2. "The law has recognized two types of subrogation: conventional; and legal or equitable. 73 Am. Jur. 2d Subrogation § ......