Platt v. Tilcon Connecticut, Inc.
Citations
- 196 Conn. App. 564
Syllabus
The plaintiff, trustee of the V Trust, sought to recover damages from the defendant asphalt production company for, inter alia, breach of contract for the defendant's failure to remit rental payments in accordance with two lease agreements. In May, 1974, the defendant's predecessor in interest entered into separate, twenty year leases with D for two asphalt production plants. The leases were set to expire on December 31, 1993, but provided for an opportunity to extend the terms of the leases. As trustee, the plaintiff owns a 12.5 percent interest in both plants. Trusts for three other individuals each own 12.5 percent and the estate of D owns 50 percent for a total of 87.5 percent interest in the plants. In 1993, the holders of the 87.5 percent interest agreed to amend the leases with the defendant to reduce the amount of rent. The plaintiff did not agree to the amendments. On April 1, 1993, the holders of the 87.5 percent interest executed amendments to the two leases. The amendments made clear that the plaintiff's 12.5 percent interest was not a part of the agreement. After execution of the amendments, the plaintiff considered the defendant a holdover tenant. The defendant continued to remit rental payments to the plaintiff, calculated pursuant to the lease amendments rather than the original lease agreements. The plaintiff accepted and deposited these payments. The defendant twice exercised its rights to extend the amendments to the leases for an additional ten years but did not do so with respect to the plaintiff's 12.5 percent interest. The plaintiff's breach of contract claims were based on the defendant's failure to remit rental payments for the plants in accordance with the terms of the original leases. The trial court found in favor of the defen- dant, concluding that the original leases expired on December 31, 1993, and, thus, the plaintiff could not prevail on his breach of contract claims. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the trial cour
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recusal lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion
- recusal lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion
- in bench trial, court is presumed to give evidence its proper weight
- whether to recuse is within the trial judge's sound discretion
- trial judge did not abuse discretion by declining to recuse where a party violated the mandatory arbitration rules, which prohibited any reference to the arbitration in any pleading or other statement in a trial de novo; court said it would ignore the reference and act impartially
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Prescott; Bright; Moll
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.