Bancboston Mortgage Corp. v. Juros, No. Cv 91-0442975s (Jan. 15, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Bancboston Mortgage Corp. v. Juros, No. Cv 91-0442975s (Jan. 15, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 993

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1992

DocketNo. CV 91-0442975S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 993 (Bancboston Mortgage Corp. v. Juros, No. Cv 91-0442975s (Jan. 15, 1992)) 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

Bancboston Mortgage Corp. v. Juros, No. Cv 91-0442975s (Jan. 15, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 993 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On July 21, 1986 the defendants bought a piece of property located in the Town of Hartford. Also on said date they executed a mortgage to the Sanborn Corporation in the principal amount of $113,600.00

On August 12, 1986 the Sanborn mortgage was released. Also on August 12, 1986 the defendants executed a mortgage to The First National Bank of Boston, which mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff, BancBoston Mortgage Corporation.

On July 31, 1988 the defendants conveyed the subject property to Otto and Linda Witt, subject to the August 12, 1986 mortgage.

On July 27, 1989 the plaintiff was notified of the transfer, and the plaintiff was sent a copy of the warranty deed which conveyed the property to the Witts.

On August 7, 1990 the defendants were notified that BancBoston was accelerating the mortgage. CT Page 994

The defendants claim in this motion for summary judgment that they were notified that the plaintiff was accelerating the mortgage dated July 21, 1986, and that they never received notice that the mortgage dated August 12, 1986 was being accelerated.

Although the acceleration notice does contain an error as to the date of the mortgage deed, the notice also states the address of the subject property and the then balance of the mortgage. It further refers to the transfer of the property to the Witts as the incident of default which triggered acceleration. Further, the notice prominently displays the plaintiff's letterhead, and the defendants had no other outstanding mortgages with the plaintiff.

Although the plaintiff did refer to the wrong mortgage, the defendants were aware that the July 21, 1986 mortgage had been released.

The court finds that the defendants were sufficiently apprised of the fact that the plaintiff was accelerating the mortgage which they had executed on August 12, 1986. City Savings Bank of Boston v. Dessoff, 3 Conn. App. 644.

The motion for summary judgment is denied.

FRANCES ALLEN SENIOR JUDGE

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