Kerin v. Udolf
| Decision Date | 11 July 1973 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | William J. KERIN v. Leonard UDOLF. |
Harry Cooper, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Howard M. Werner, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Jerome E. Caplan, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
This was an action on a promissory note brought by the plaintiff, William J. Kerin, seeking to recover the balance of the note on the ground that a default in the payment of a monthly installment had occurred. The defendant, Leonard Udolf, denied the default and, by way of special defense, alleged payment of the installment by check duly deposited in the mail. This defense was denied. The court found the issues for the defendant and granted equitable relief. From the judgment rendered thereon, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The plaintiff has assigned error in the finding by the court of five paragraphs of the finding without evidence. The validity of such a claim is tested by the evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs. Practice Book § 718; Walker v. Jankura, 162 Conn. 482, 484, 294 A.2d 536; State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 258, 224 A.2d 744. An examination of the evidence in the appendices discloses ample support for these findings. The remaining assignments of error attack the conclusions reached and the rulings of the court on the plaintiff's claims of law.
The facts in the case can be summarized as follows: On January 3, 1968, the defendant executed his note to the plaintiff in the sum of $25,030.61, payable in installments of $287.42 on the third day of each month. The note provided that default in the payment of a monthly installment for a period of fifteen days would render the whole amount due and payable at the option of the holder. For two and one-half years the defendant sent a timely check to the plaintiff for each installment by mail, without incident. A check for the August 3, 1970, installment was drawn on August 5, 1970, by the wife of the defendant on an account which, at the time, had a balance of $1173.15. The defendant's wife gave him the check in an envelope addressed to the plaintiff. The defendant took the envelope to his place of business and gave it to his employee, Mrs. Barbara, Bean, so that she could run it through the postage meter and mail it, according to custom, and this customary procedure was followed during the first week of August, 1970. The plaintiff never received the check. On August 19, 1970, after the fifteen-day grace period had expired, the plaintiff notified the defendant by letter that the note was in default and that he had elected to declare the entire amount due and payable. The amount remaining due was $20,253.63, principal, plus interest to August, 1970. The defendant, who was away on vacation, was informed of the plaintiff's letter. He immediately telephoned the plaintiff to explain that the check must have been lost or misplaced in the mail. On August 24, 1970, he sent the plaintiff another check for the one not received. He then got in touch with the post office in an attempt to trace the lost check. On August 26, 1970, the plaintiff returned the replacement check and on September 2, 1970, the plaintiff's counsel requested full payment with interest and $1000 attorney's fee. Thereafter, through the date of the trial, the defendant has sent a timely check for each installment which the plaintiff refused to accept. The interest rate on the note was more favorable to the defendant than that generally available for mortgages at the time of execution and at the time of the trial.
The trial court reached the following conclusions: The check dated August 5, 1970, was duly deposited in the mail, in an envelope properly stamped and addressed, in sufficient time to reach the plaintiff before default; the check was never received by the plaintiff; within a reasonable time after notification of its nonreceipt, the defendant tendered the amount of the installment and made timely tender of installments thereafter until the time of trial; the plaintiff assented to the procedure of mailing each installment, and the risk of nonreceipt, once it had been duly mailed and in an envelope properly addressed and stamped, was on the plaintiff. The final conclusion of the court was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Mazzeo
...was duly deposited.... Any other rule would ignore the realities of today's business practice." (Citation omitted.) Kerin v. Udolf , 165 Conn. 264, 268, 334 A.2d 434 (1973). In interpreting this language, however, courts have concluded that the direct or circumstantial evidence to be provid......
- Mahon v. Heim
-
State v. Battle
...the conclusions reached by the trial court. A trial court's conclusions are tested by the subordinate facts found. Kerin v. Udolf, 165 Conn. 264, 267, 334 A.2d 434; State v. Villafane, 164 Conn. 637, 638, 325 A.2d 251. The subordinate facts disclose that at the time the guilty plea was ente......
-
(Uk v. Jdca, LLC
...the person for whom it was due is relieved from the consequences of a default if it is duly and properly put into mail. Kerin v. Udolf, 165 Conn. 264, 268 (1973). Here, JDCA offers no affirmative evidence in its motion that Continental consented to consider payments timely when mailed. See ......