Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Katske

Connecticut Appellate Court

Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Katske

535 A.2d 818, 13 Conn. App. 174, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 13

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1988

Docket5218

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 535 A.2d 818 (Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Katske) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Katske, 535 A.2d 818, 13 Conn. App. 174, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 13 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff on a mortgage securing a guaranty on a note in the principal amount of $218,700. The defendants asserted special defenses alleging unconscionable acts and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the plaintiff.

The sole issue of this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the defendants had failed to sustain their burden of proof on the special defenses.

The trial court filed a detailed memorandum of decision; Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Katske, 40 Conn. Sup. 560, 535 A.2d 836 (1987); which adequately discusses the facts and sole issue. After examining the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that no further articulation of the law or facts is necessary. See Faith Center, Inc. v. Hartford, 192 Conn. 434, 436, 472 [175]*175A.2d 16 (1984); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 192 Conn. 252, 253, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984). The trial court memorandum should be referred to for a detailed discussion.

There is no error. The case is remanded to the trial court to set new law days.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff on a mortgage securing a guaranty on a note in the principal amount of $218,700. The defendants asserted special defenses alleging unconscionable acts and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the plaintiff.

The sole issue of this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the defendants had failed to sustain their burden of proof on the special defenses.

The trial court filed a detailed memorandum of decision; Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Katske, 40 Conn. Sup. 560, 535 A.2d 836 (1987); which adequately discusses the facts and sole issue. After examining the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that no further articulation of the law or facts is necessary. See Faith Center, Inc. v. Hartford, 192 Conn. 434, 436, 472 [175]*175A.2d 16 (1984); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 192 Conn. 252, 253, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984). The trial court memorandum should be referred to for a detailed discussion.

There is no error. The case is remanded to the trial court to set new law days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 A.2d 818, 13 Conn. App. 174, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-bank-trust-co-v-katske-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack