Yarbrough v. Demirjian
| Decision Date | 01 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 6311,6311 |
| Citation | 17 Conn.App. 1,549 A.2d 283 |
| Parties | Celia YARBROUGH v. George DEMIRJIAN. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Alfred J. Onorato, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Vincent J. Dooley, for appellant (defendant).
Jean M. D'Aquila, Middletown, with whom, on the brief, was Michael J. Gustafson, West Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before SPALLONE, DALY and STOUGHTON, JJ.
The plaintiff instituted a summary process action to recover possession of her residence which the defendant had been occupying. The defendant appeals from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in concluding that an oral lease existed between the parties. We find no error.
The trial court found the following facts. The parties had been close friends for a number of years. On June 27, 1980, the parties executed a bond for deed providing for the sale of premises owned by the plaintiff in Middletown. The purchase price was $70,000; the defendant paid $39,000 as a downpayment, leaving a balance of $31,000 due at the time of the transfer of title. The bond for deed provided that the closing would take place on or before January 1, 1982. The closing, however, never occurred. After execution of the bond for deed, the plaintiff returned to Texas and her two children occupied the premises from June, 1980, to November, 1983. During that time, the plaintiff's children paid the mortgage, interest and taxes on the property in lieu of paying rent. The defendant moved onto the premises in November, 1983, pursuant to an oral agreement with the plaintiff. During his possession of the premises, the defendant also paid the mortgage, interest and taxes.
On December 10, 1986, the defendant was served with a notice to quit possession. In his special defenses to the action, the defendant maintained that he had entered the premises pursuant to the bond for deed, thereby precluding a summary process action under General Statutes § 47a-2. 1 In addition, the defendant argued that the summary process action was barred due to the pendency of his suit against the plaintiff for specific performance of the bond for deed. This argument relies on the principle that two suits should not be brought for the determination of a matter between the same parties when that determination can be properly and effectually made in one suit. See Cahill v. Cahill, 76 Conn. 542, 548, 57 A. 284 (1904).
The trial court's finding that the defendant's occupancy of the premises was pursuant to an oral lease, rather than under the bond for deed, is dispositive of this appeal.
"Where the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision...." Davis v. Naugatuck, 15 Conn.App. 185, 188, 543 A.2d 785 (1988); see also Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217, 221-22, 435 A.2d 24 (1980). Our review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc.
...731, 462 A.2d 7. The plaintiff, on the other hand, principally relies on the Appellate Court's subsequent decision in Yarbrough v. Demirjian, 17 Conn.App. 1, 549 A.2d 283, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 828, 552 A.2d 434 (1988). In Yarbrough, the parties had executed a bond for deed providing for ......
-
VRM (Vendor Resource Management) v. Estate of Zackowski
... ... " ... A summary process action is aimed at deciding the simple ... question of who is entitled to possession." ... Yarbrough v. Demirjian , 17 Conn.App. 1, 3, 549 A.2d ... 283 (1988). " Because of the summary nature of [summary ... process], the statute granting ... ...
-
Carnese v. Middleton
...A summary process action is designed solely to decide "the simple question of who is entitled to possession." Yarbrough v. Demirjian, 17 Conn.App. 1, 3, 549 A.2d 283, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 828, 552 A.2d 434 (1988); Urban v. Prims, 35 Conn.Sup. 233, 236, 406 A.2d 11 (1979). A claim for dam......
-
Chomko v. Patmon
...and we agree with its conclusion that the defendants were occupying the premises under a sales agreement. Cf. Yarbrough v. Demirjian, 17 Conn.App. 1, 3, 549 A.2d 283 (1988). The plaintiff's second claim is that the trial court erred in failing to find that the defendants were tenants at suf......