Chase Mortgage Company v. Infurchia, No. Cv99 036 48 21s (Apr. 24, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided April 24, 2000·No. No. CV99 036 48 21S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIAL DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM (#115)
1. First Special Defense. Granted. The allegations are conclusory and contain no issuable facts to support them. The defense is therefore legally insufficient. Cavallo v. Derby Savings Bank, 188 Conn. 281, 285 (1982).

2. Second Special Defense and Counterclaim. Granted. Under Dubinsky v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 48 Conn. App. 52 (1998) a lender is under no statutory or common law duty to perform an accurate appraisal for its borrower's use. In addition, the allegations taken as a whole fail to satisfy the multipronged elements of the torts of intentional misrepresentation, Paiva v. Vanech Heights Construction Co., 159 Conn. 512, 515 (1970) or fraud. Weisman, Trustee v. Kasper, 233 Conn. 531, 539 (1995).

BY THE COURT,

Mottolese, Judge CT Page 4640

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

Chase Mortgage Company v. Infurchia, No. Cv99 036 48 21s (Apr. 24, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639 (Chase Mortgage Company v. Infurchia, No. Cv99 036 48 21s (Apr. 24, 2000)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cavallo v. Derby Savings Bank
449 A.2d 986 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
Paiva v. Vanech Heights Construction Co.
271 A.2d 69 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1970)
Weisman v. Kaspar
661 A.2d 530 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1995)
Dubinsky v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.
708 A.2d 226 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)