New Milford Sav. Bank v. Roina
Decision Date | 20 June 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 12342,12342 |
Citation | 659 A.2d 1226,38 Conn.App. 240 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | NEW MILFORD SAVINGS BANK v. R. Richard ROINA, Trustee, et al. |
Peter J. Ottomano, Westport, for appellants(defendants).
Vincent P. McCarthy, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph P. Secola, New Milford, for appellee(plaintiff).
Before LANDAU, SCHALLER and SPEAR, JJ.
In this foreclosure action, the defendantsR. Richard Roina as trustee, John R. Fiore, Charles A. Fiore and Pat J. Cutrone(defendants) appeal from the judgments of the trial court granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaim and granting the plaintiff's motion for a deficiency judgment and supplemental judgment.The defendants claim that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment on their counterclaim.They also claim that General Statutes § 49-28, 1 pursuant to which the trial court rendered the deficiency judgment, violates the due process clause of the federal and state constitutions.We affirm the judgments.
In 1987, the defendants sought land acquisition and road construction financing from the plaintiff for the purpose of purchasing a tract of land in Southbury and developing subdivisions thereon.A representative of the plaintiff informed the defendant that its procedure for financing the development of subdivisions was to provide financing for the land acquisition first and, in a second phase, to accept an application for refinancing to provide funds for road construction.On November 2, 1987, the plaintiff issued a revised commitment letter to the defendants for a land acquisition loan in the amount of $2,340,000.In 1989, the plaintiff denied the defendants' refinance application.The defendants thereafter defaulted on the first mortgage and the plaintiff commenced an action seeking to foreclose the defendants' interest in the Southbury parcel of land.
The defendants first claim that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to their counterclaim.Following the filing of the plaintiff's complaint, the defendants filed a counterclaim alleging breach of an oral agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.After the trial court severed the actions, the foreclosure action proceeded to judgment of foreclosure by sale.The court thereafter granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaim.
In support of their claim that summary judgment was improper, the defendants argue that a genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the bank's good faith and fair dealing with respect to their refinancing application.The defendants assert that their application was denied in bad faith in that the plaintiff's officers manipulated the appraisal of the property.The plaintiff responds that the defendants pleaded a breach of an oral agreement, not a bad faith denial.The plaintiff asserts that because no issue of material fact regarding the breach of an oral agreement existed, it was entitled to summary judgment.At the hearing on the summary judgment motion, the defendants changed the tenor of their argument and claimed for the first time a bad faith denial of their refinancing application.In the course of that hearing, the defendants admitted that no oral agreement existed.The plaintiff now argues that because the defendants never moved to amend their counterclaim to include allegations supporting a bad faith denial claim, they were compelled to litigate the breach of an oral agreement claim.Further, because the defendants admitted that no oral agreement existed, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on the counterclaim.2We agree with the plaintiff.
' " 'Trotta v. Branford, 26 Conn.App. 407, 409-10, 601 A.2d 1036(1992).
Trotta v. Branford, supra, 26 Conn.App. at 412-13, 601 A.2d 1036.
A review of the defendants' counterclaim reveals that they alleged facts supporting a claim that the plaintiff made and breached an oral agreement to...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Rytman
...foreclosure portion of the case on the court side list, while placing the counterclaim on the jury list. See New Milford Savings Bank v. Roina, 38 Conn.App. 240, 242, 659 A.2d 1226, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 915, 665 A.2d 609 (1995); but see footnote 16. In exercising that discretion, the tri......
-
Iacurci v. Sax
...merely to assert the existence of a disputed issue.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) New Milford Savings Bank v. Roina, 38 Conn.App. 240, 244–45, 659 A.2d 1226, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 915, 665 A.2d 609 (1995). “The issue must be one which the party opposing the motio......
-
Tinaco Plaza, LLC v. Freebob's, Inc.
...whether they are contained in a complaint or brief." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) New Milford Savings Bank v. Roina, 38 Conn. App. 240, 244, 659 A.2d 1226, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 915, 665 A.2d 609 With respect to a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he judgment soug......
-
Goshen Mortg., LLC v. Androulidakis
...is not enough to preclude summary judgment." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) New Milford Savings Bank v. Roina , 38 Conn. App. 240, 244–45, 659 A.2d 1226, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 915, 665 A.2d 609 (1995).A We first address the defendant's claim that the substitute pla......