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

Connecticut Superior Court

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

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 24, 2000

DocketNo. CV99 036 48 21S

StatusUnpublished

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

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

Pincite

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-mortgage-company-v-infurchia-no-cv99-036-48-21s-apr-24-2000-connsuperct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack