Sargent v. Smith

4 Citing cases

  1. Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport

    275 Conn. 105 (Conn. 2005)   Cited 270 times
    Holding that Connecticut's LLC statute โ€œmerely codifiesโ€ established liability principles of corporate law

    Because the issue of whether a corporate officer has committed or participated in the wrongful conduct of a corporation is a question of fact, it is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Sargent v. Smith, 272 Conn. 722, 728, 865 A.2d 1129 (2005). "[A reviewing court] cannot retry the facts or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. . . . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

  2. 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. . . ."

  3. 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.

  4. Wright Brothers Builders v. Shuldman

    2008 Ct. Sup. 20810 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)

    Having found the issues for the plaintiff with respect to the first and second counts of its complaint and with respect to all counts of the defendant's counter claims, the court will schedule a hearing to determine that extent to which the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees pursuant to General Statutes ยง 52-249(a).Original Grasso Construction Co., Inc. v. Shepherd, 70 Conn.App. 404 (2002); Smith v. Synder, 272 Conn. 722 (2005). "The plaintiff in any action of foreclosure of a mortgage or lien, upon obtaining judgment of foreclosure, when there has been a hearing as to the form of judgment or the limitation of time for redemption, shall be allowed the same costs, including a reasonable attorneys fee, as if there had been a hearing on an issue of fact . . ."