Entries Tagged as 'Foreclosure'
For Foreclosure Help Click This Line
Case: X First Conn. Capital v. Homes of Westport (AC 28991) February 2009
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Trial Court: Stamford - Norwalk
Synopsis: Conn. Practice Book § 61-14 provides that upon appeal the execution of an order of the court terminating a stay of execution shall be stayed for ten days from the issuance of notice of the order. The foreclosure court erred by ordering that the stay of execution would not go into effect. It was thus error for the foreclosure by sale to occur within the ten days
Case Link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP165.pdf
Tags: Foreclosure
For Foreclosure Help Click This Line
Case: PNC Bank v. Kelepecz (SC 18129) December 2008
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Trial Court: Bridgeport
Synopsis: Although Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-380a states that a judgment lien should set forth the original judgment amount, a lien missing the amount is still valid because it provides sufficient notice to third parties of the existence of the lien, thereby satisfying the statute’s purpose.
Case Link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR168.pdf
Tags: judgment lien
For Foreclosure Help Click This Line
Case: Argent Mortgage Co. v. Huertas (SC 18002) August 2008
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Trial Court: New Haven at Meriden
Synopsis: A foreclosure complaint left at the home of a prisoner was upheld as valid service of process because a person may have more than one place of abode. The court noted that the defendant’s children and the father of one of her children lived at the residence when service was made.
Case Link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR288/288CR142.pdf
Tags: abode · Foreclosure · service
For Foreclosure Help Click This Line
Case: MERS v. Goduto (AC 28900) September 2008
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Trial Court: Ansonia - Derby
Synopsis: A lender filed foreclosure against an owner of property in Shelton. The bank won judgment. To stop foreclosure, the defendant appealed, arguing that the lender did not give notice of default in the manner required by the mortgage because the two notices of default given by bank did not provide for thirty days to cure the default. The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument. The Court stated that while the lender may have not followed the literal requirements of the mortgage notice provision, “Any possible discrepancy between the terms of the mortgage and the plaintiff’s notices caused no harm to the defendant because he had sixty-five days of actual notice in which to protect his property rights.”
Case Link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110ap482.pdf
Tags: default · Foreclosure · mortgage · notice
