D. H. R. Const. Co., Inc. v. Donnelly

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtBOGDANSKI
Citation429 A.2d 908,180 Conn. 430
PartiesD. H. R. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. Thomas J. DONNELLY et al.
Decision Date29 April 1980

Page 908

429 A.2d 908
180 Conn. 430
D. H. R. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
v.
Thomas J. DONNELLY et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued Feb. 14, 1980.
Decided April 29, 1980.

Page 909

[180 Conn. 431] Lester Katz, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Richard F. Banbury, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Elliott B. Pollack, Hartford, for appellee (defendant Raffaela R. Donnelly).

Before [180 Conn. 430] LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY and PARSKEY, JJ.

[180 Conn. 431] BOGDANSKI, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff instituted an action on a note against the defendants Thomas J. Donnelly and Charles Regulbuto. In a second count the plaintiff alleged that while the defendant Thomas J. Donnelly was indebted to the plaintiff, he "caused to be conveyed" to the defendant Raffaela R. Donnelly (hereinafter Raffaela) certain real property located at 1400 Main Street, South Windsor, without consideration and with the intent to avoid his debts. On May 9, 1978, a judgment in the amount of $14,168 was entered for the plaintiff against Thomas Donnelly and Charles Regulbuto on the first count. On December 18, 1978, the trial court granted Raffaela's motion for summary judgment as to the second count on the ground that Thomas Donnelly "did not [180 Conn. 432] own the property and did not transfer it to Raffaela." From the summary judgment rendered, the plaintiff has appealed.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that: (1) the affidavits submitted by the defendant Raffaela in support of the motion for summary judgment do not negate the existence of all issues of material fact; and (2) summary judgment is inappropriate in cases involving a claim of fraudulent conveyance.

In its affidavits and other documents, the plaintiff alleged that Thomas was indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $18,000 at the time he made a gift to his wife of $30,000 which he had recently borrowed from a business associate; that he made this gift to Raffaela for the purpose of buying the 1400 Main Street property and constructing a house thereon; that title was put in Raffaela's name alone because Thomas wanted it that way; that Thomas co-signed a mortgage note for $50,000 on the Main Street property; that he was paying $523 monthly on the mortgage; and that he was making monthly payments of $249.08 for taxes and $66.67 for insurance on the mortgaged property.

As already noted, the plaintiff in its complaint alleged that Thomas "caused to be conveyed" the Main Street property to his wife,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
192 practice notes
  • Ascuitto v. Farricielli, No. 15729
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 12, 1998
    ...which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law; D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980); and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a ge......
  • Nolan v. Borkowski, No. 1323
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 15, 1988
    ...477 A.2d 1005 (1984). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but r......
  • Miller v. United Technologies Corp., No. 15012
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 27, 1995
    ...is on the moving party and the standards of summary judgment are strictly and forcefully applied. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 We note that summary judgment is not well suited to the disposal of complex cases; United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Co......
  • Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., No. 14765
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 16, 1994
    ...under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law' "; D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980); and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
192 cases
  • Ascuitto v. Farricielli, No. 15729
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 12, 1998
    ...which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law; D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980); and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a ge......
  • Nolan v. Borkowski, No. 1323
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 15, 1988
    ...477 A.2d 1005 (1984). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but r......
  • Miller v. United Technologies Corp., No. 15012
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 27, 1995
    ...is on the moving party and the standards of summary judgment are strictly and forcefully applied. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 We note that summary judgment is not well suited to the disposal of complex cases; United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Co......
  • Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., No. 14765
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 16, 1994
    ...under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law' "; D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980); and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT