Krondes v. Norwalk Savings Society, (AC 17221)
Decision Date | 27 April 1999 |
Docket Number | (AC 17221) |
Citation | 53 Conn. App. 102,728 A.2d 1103 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | FLORENCE KRONDES v. NORWALK SAVINGS SOCIETY |
Landau, Schaller and Dupont, Js. Arthur R. Riccio, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).
Richard E. Castiglioni, with whom, on the brief, was James P. Blanchfield, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff, Florence Krondes, appeals from a judgment of the trial court rendered after the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) directed the verdict for the defendant, (2) concluded that the plaintiffs claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, (3) concluded that the plaintiffs claims were precluded on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds and (4) denied the plaintiff's request to have the jury polled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant on May 24, 1991. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that she relied to her detriment on the advice, experience and expertise of the defendant and its agents in connection with the purchase and financing of two properties located at 31 Isaac Street, Norwalk (Isaac Street property), and 142-152 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk (Connecticut Avenue property). On March 30, 1987, the plaintiff borrowed $200,000 from the defendant and, as security for the loan, executed a promissory note and gave a mortgage to the defendant on the Isaac Street property. The plaintiff contracted to purchase the Connecticut Avenue property on February 4, 1986. In connection with the contract, the plaintiff accepted and executed a series of mortgage commitment letters concerning the Connecticut Avenue property, the last one expiring on March 14, 1988. The plaintiff and the sellers never completed this transaction, however, and on May 5, 1988, the plaintiff sold her right to the contract to a third party.
The plaintiff alleged that she sought to finance the purchase of both properties through the defendant bank because the defendant held existing mortgages on the properties and allegedly knew the sellers, and she thought that she could enter into a special relationship with the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that she in fact established a special relationship of trust and confidence with the defendant and that, by virtue of this special banking relationship, the defendant owed her a duty to advise her of any information it had obtained relating to the properties. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached this duty by failing to advise her of certain detrimental information relating to the properties and the sellers and that said breach caused the plaintiff to suffer economic and other damages.2 The one count complaint alleged claims for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of a fiduciary duty and relationship of trust and confidence, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.
The defendant filed an answer and special defenses, alleging that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.3 The plaintiff filed an amended reply denying the claims made in the defendant's special defenses and alleging that the defendant fraudulently concealed the plaintiffs causes of action in violation of General Statutes § 52-595. A jury was selected and the trial commenced on February 25, 1997.
On March 7, 1997, at the close of the plaintiffs case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict pursuant to Practice Book § 16-37. After hearing argument, the trial court reserved decision on the motion. Thereafter, on March 11, 1997, the trial court stated the following:
The trial court found that as to the fraud, misrepresentation, tort and CUTPA claims, the plaintiff failed to present clear, precise and unequivocal evidence from which a jury could infer fraudulent concealment. The court, therefore, concluded that the applicable three year statutes of limitation were not tolled and that the plaintiffs claims were barred. These conclusions of the trial court applied to both the Connecticut Avenue and Isaac Street properties.
In addition to the ruling as to the statutes of limitation, the trial court ruled that the plaintiffs claims relating to the Isaac Street property were precluded by res judicata4 but that her claims as to the Connecticut Avenue property were not precluded on res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds because those claims were not involved in the prior foreclosure action.
The trial court concluded that the only viable claim remaining was the claim for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to the Connecticut Avenue property and that it would charge the jury as to that claim alone. Thereafter, the defendant presented one witness and then rested its case. No rebuttal was offered.
The next day the trial court stated the following:
The trial court explained further that it would allow the claim only as it relates to the Connecticut Avenue property. The trial court stated that
Thereafter, the defendant renewed its motion for a directed verdict with respect to all claims in the complaint. The trial court stated, 5 The defendant argued that the court should direct a verdict as to the breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of a breach to support her claim. The plaintiff countered that she presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find for the plaintiff.
Following the parties' arguments on the defendant's renewed motion for a directed verdict, the trial court stated the following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wiseman v. Armstrong, (SC 18152) (Conn. 3/9/2010)
...the poll when requested in a criminal case. See State v. Pare, supra, 253 Conn. 624-25; see generally Krondes v. Norwalk Savings Society, 53 Conn. App. 102, 121-22, 728 A.2d 1103 (1999) ("§ 42-31 . . . now requires that the jury be polled at the request of any party" [emphasis added]). Ther......
-
Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.
...whether court properly denied motion to set aside verdict on ground of insufficient evidence); Krondes v. Norwalk Savings Society , 53 Conn. App. 102, 111–17, 728 A.2d 1103 (1999) (determining whether evidence was insufficient to warrant directed verdict).The November 3, 2010 operative comp......
-
Mountaindale Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Zappone
...the trial judge to rule on an overlooked matter." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Krondes v. Norwalk Savings Society, 53 Conn. App. 102, 116, 728 A.2d 1103 (1999). Here, the plaintiff did not move for an articulation of the court's ruling regarding the subject discove......
-
Gianetti v. Greater Bridgeport Individual Practice Association, No. (X02) CV 02-4001685 (CT 7/21/2005)
...which are governed by the three-year tort statute, running from the time of the occurrence. See Krondes v. Norwalk Savings Society, 53 Conn.App. 102, 113, 728 A.2d 1103 (1999); Collum v. Chapin, supra, 40 Conn.App. 451; Day v. General Electric Credit Corp., 15 Conn.App. 677, 683, 546 A.2d 3......