Sargent v. Smith

6 Citing cases

  1. Sargent v. Smith

    272 Conn. 722 (Conn. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Denying plaintiff's claim in second appeal that he would have been entitled to money collected by receiver during pendency of first appeal, and noting that "no equitable considerations warrant a contrary result" because same parties were involved in both actions, that plaintiff could have alerted trial court in first action to his claim, and that plaintiff could have taken appeal challenging actions of receiver when actions actually occurred

    The Appellate Court agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the judgment of the trial court, determining that "neither the mortgage, nor the institution of the foreclosure action, nor the judgment of strict foreclosure extinguished the defendant's obligation under the lease to pay the . . . charges and [her] failure to pay the charges damaged the plaintiff." Sargent v. Smith, 78 Conn. App. 691, 699, 828 A.2d 620 (2003). The defendant thereafter sought reconsideration, asserting, inter alia, that the Appellate Court should remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings to allow her to present evidence on the special defenses that had not been decided as a result of the judgment rendered by the trial court.

  2. Sargent v. Smith

    835 A.2d 476 (Conn. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    Decided November 12, 2003 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 78 Conn. App. 691 (AC 22997), is granted, limited to the following issues: "1. Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant?

  3. Milford Paintball v. Wampus Milford Associates

    117 Conn. App. 86 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 8 times
    Remanding case for new trial when trial court's findings were dependent on erroneous view of the law

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sargent v. Smith, 78 Conn. App. 691, 694, 828 A.2d 620 (2003), rev'd on other grounds, 272 Conn. 722, 865 A.2d 1129 (2005). "When construing a lease, we bear in mind three fundamental principles: (1) The intention of the parties is controlling and must be gathered from the language of the lease in the light of the circumstances surrounding the parties at the execution of the instrument; (2) the language must be given its ordinary meaning unless a technical or special meaning is clearly intended; (3) the lease must be construed as a whole and in such a manner as to give effect to every provision, if reasonably possible. . . . Where contract language is clear and unambiguous, the question of contractual intent presents a question of law for the court. . . ."

  4. Ocwen Federal Bank v. Charles

    95 Conn. App. 315 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 67 times
    Noting that passing of law day extinguishes right of equitable redemption and vests title absolutely in mortgagee

    " (Citations omitted.) Sargent v. Smith, 78 Conn. App. 691, 695-96, 828 A.2d 620 (2003), rev'd on other grounds, 272 Conn. 722, 865 A.2d 1129 (2005); see also Ferrigno v. Cromwell Development Associates, 244 Conn. 189, 201 n.10, 708 A.2d 1371 (1998). "The equity of redemption gives the mortgagor the right to redeem the legal title previously conveyed by performing whatever conditions are specified in the mortgage, the most important of which is usually the payment of money.

  5. Nat'l City Mortgage v. Stoecker

    92 Conn. App. 787 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 41 times

    "Connecticut follows the `title theory' of mortgages, which provides that on the execution of a mortgage on real property, the mortgagee holds legal title and the mortgagor holds equitable title to the property." Sargent v. Smith, 78 Conn. App. 691, 695, 828 A.2d 620 (2003), rev'd on other grounds, 272 Conn. 722, 865 A.2d 1129 (2005). "In a title theory state such as Connecticut, a mortgage is a vested fee simple interest subject to complete defeasance by the timely payment of the mortgage debt."

  6. Seals v. Havey

    No. FSTCV146022271S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 2, 2016)

    " Connecticut follows the 'title theory' of mortgages, which provides that on the execution of a mortgage on real property, the mortgagee holds legal title and the mortgagor holds equitable title to the property." Sargent v. Smith, 78 Conn.App. 691, 695, 828 A.2d 620 (2003), rev'd on other grounds, 272 Conn. 722, 865 A.2d 1129 (2005). " In a title theory state such as Connecticut, a mortgage is a vested fee simple interest subject to complete defeasance by the timely payment of the mortgage debt."