RCN Capital, LLC v. Sunford Properties & Development, LLC
Citations
- 196 Conn. App. 823
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 49-1), ''[t]he foreclosure of a mortgage is a bar to any further action upon the mortgage debt, note or obligation against the person or persons who are liable for the payment thereof who are made parties to the foreclosure . . . .'' The plaintiff sought to foreclose, inter alia, a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendant S Co. and to collect on a personal guarantee by the defendant L. S Co. had executed a promissory note in the amount of $800,000 in favor of the plaintiff, which was secured by a mortgage on the subject property, and L executed a guarantee agreement in which he personally guaranteed all sums due under the note, including attorney's fees and costs. Following S Co.'s default on the note, the plaintiff commenced this action by way of a three count complaint, and the trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure as to the first two counts. Thereafter, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for a deficiency judgment against S Co., and the parties stipulated that there was a deficiency of $449,441.88, including attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability on count three of the complaint, which was directed against L and sought to collect on his personal guarantee of the note. The defendants filed an objection to the motion, contending that the plaintiff was barred from recovering from L pursuant to § 49-1 and the statute (§ 49-14) that provides a limited exception to § 49-1. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, concluding, inter alia, that § 49-1 had no effect on the plaintiff's ability to recover monetary damages from L following the judgment of strict foreclosure. Thereafter, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment as to count three of the complaint and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $531,938.98. On the defendants' appeal to this court, held: 1. The defendants could not
Judges: Lavine; Alvord; Lavery
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.