Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Galluzzo
Decision Date | 14 April 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 11895,11895 |
Citation | 33 Conn.App. 662,637 A.2d 803 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | FLEET BANK, N.A. v. Gianfranco GALLUZZO et al. |
Richard P. Weinstein, West Hartford, for the appellant(defendantRichard S. Whitehouse).
David C. Bloomberg, with whom, on the brief, was Kirk D. Tavtigian, Jr., Hartford, for the appellee(plaintiff).
Before FOTI, LAVERY and LANDAU, JJ.
In this action in contract, the defendantRichard Whitehouse, 1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court(1) granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (2) awarding interest pursuant to General Statutes § 52-192a, 2 the offer of judgment statute.The principal issue on appeal is whether Whitehouse produced sufficient evidence as to the existence of an agreement and such partial performance so as to survive the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under General Statutes § 52-550.3
The following facts are relevant to this appeal.On May 22, 1989, 44-52 Cedar Street Associates, a general partnership, executed a promissory note in favor of United Bank and Trust Company, the predecessor of the plaintiff, Fleet Bank, N.A., in the amount of $350,000.The note was secured by real property located in Hartford.The general partners, the named defendant, Gianfranco Galluzzo, and the defendantRichard Whitehouse signed guarantee agreements.Following the defendants' default, under the terms of the note, the plaintiff initiated this action to recover on the defendants' guarantees.
On October 17, 1991, the plaintiff filed an offer for judgment, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-192a, in the amount of $325,000 against Whitehouse.Whitehouse did not accept the offer of judgment.
On December 12, 1991, Whitehouse filed an answer, special defenses and a three count counterclaim.In his special defense, Whitehouse contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff breached an alleged agreement to accept the deed to property securing the note in full satisfaction of the debt.4On March 11, 1992, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the defendant, as a guarantor, was liable on a certain note and was in breach of his agreement of guaranty.
Addressing the significance of the parties' telephone conversations, the trial court found: (Citations omitted.)
(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Cortes v. Cotton, 31 Conn.App. 569, 572-73, 626 A.2d 1306(1993).
Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 31 Conn.App. 824, 844, 627 A.2d 1347(1993).Cortes v. Cotton, supra, 31 Conn.App. at 575, 626 A.2d 1306.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)Ubysz v. DiPietro, 185 Conn. 47, 54, 440 A.2d 830(1981).The determination of whether any acts by Whitehouse occurred that amounted to part performance requires a factual finding properly submitted to the jury.Id., at 55, 440 A.2d 830.5Therefore, the trial...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Milazzo v. Schwartz
...possession and the payment of $3000 complied with the explicit terms of the lease agreement. Whether these actions constituted part performance was a factual determination to be made by the trial court. See
Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Galluzzo, 33 Conn.App. 662, 666, 637 A.2d 803, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 910, 642 A.2d 1206 (1994). The trial court may have refused to invoke this equitable doctrine for a number of reasons. It may have determined, for example, that the defendants' actions could... -
Iacurci v. Sax
...court or the Appellate Court to substitute its version of the facts for what is properly the role of the fact finder. See Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381, 405 n. 10, 973 A.2d 1229 (2009) ; see also
Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Galluzzo, 33 Conn.App. 662, 666, 637 A.2d 803, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 910, 642 A.2d 1206 (1994). Once the predicate issue of material fact regarding the fiduciary relationship was established, in my view, it was unnecessary to consider the burden... -
Iacurci v. Sax
...defendants presented no opposing evidence. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the role of the trial court is to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, not to decide such questions. See
Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Galluzzo, 33 Conn. App. 662, 666, 637 A.2d 803, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 910, 642 A.2d 1206 (1994). By the same rule, appellate courts should not decide questions of fact. Bayer v. Showmo-tion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381, 405 n.10, 973 A.2d 1229 (2009) (function... -
Rosario v. Hasak
...trier of fact when ruling on a motion for summary judgment.... [T]he trial court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist....
Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Galluzzo, 33 Conn.App. 662, 666, 637 A.2d 803, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 910, 642 A.2d 1206 (1994)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Field v. Kearns, 43 Conn.App. 265, 270, 682 A.2d 148, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 942, 684 A.2d 711 (1996). The accidental...