A-Meer Investment Group v. Emerick, No. Cv99 36 99 90 S (Jul. 11, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9519
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedJuly 11, 2001
DocketNo. CV99 36 99 90 S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9519 (A-Meer Investment Group v. Emerick, No. Cv99 36 99 90 S (Jul. 11, 2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
A-Meer Investment Group v. Emerick, No. Cv99 36 99 90 S (Jul. 11, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9519 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: ACCEPTANCE OF ATTORNEY TRIAL REFEREE REPORT
The objections to the acceptance of the referee's report are overruled. The attorney trial referee's recommendations are supported by the findings in the report.

The applicable standards for this court's review have been discussed by our Supreme Court, see Meadows v. Higgins, 249 Conn. 155, 162,733 A.2d 172 (1999), and our Appellate Court, see Post Road Iron Works v.Lexington Dev. Group, 54 Conn. App. 534, 539, 736 A.2d 923 (1999). The court has reviewed the attorney trial referee's report, the exhibits, the transcript of the proceeding before the attorney trial referee, the briefs that have been filed by the parties, and the pleadings. There is evidence in the record to support the findings of fact. The legal conclusions are supported by the subordinate facts.

The attorney trial referee recommends that judgment enter for the plaintiff against both defendants as follows:

a. $106,330.71 which includes principal due and owing, interest and late fees through February 21, 2001; plus

b. late fees at the rate of four (4%) per cent per month from and after February 21, 2001; plus

c. attorney's fees of $9,215.00.

Judgment may enter for the plaintiff against both defendants in accordance with the recommendations of the attorney trial referee.

___________________ THIM, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meadows v. Higgins
733 A.2d 172 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1999)
Post Road Iron Works, Inc. v. Lexington Development Group, Inc.
736 A.2d 923 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-meer-investment-group-v-emerick-no-cv99-36-99-90-s-jul-11-2001-connsuperct-2001.