Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Linsky

Connecticut Appellate Court

Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Linsky

627 A.2d 954, 32 Conn. App. 13, 1993 Conn. App. LEXIS 332

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJuly 13, 1993

Docket10590

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 627 A.2d 954 (Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Linsky) 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. Linsky, 627 A.2d 954, 32 Conn. App. 13, 1993 Conn. App. LEXIS 332 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Landau, J.

The defendants¹ appeal from the deficiency judgment rendered against them by the trial court. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly used the leased fee value of the prop[14]*14erty for the purposes of the deficiency judgment rather than the fee simple value of the property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The subject property is a commercially zoned parcel located at 131 Dwight Street in New Haven. In September of 1990, the plaintiff, Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, N.A., filed a writ against the defendants seeking a strict foreclosure of its mortgage on the subject property. The mortgage secured the defendants’ $390,000 commercial mortgage note to the plaintiff dated January 15, 1988. On May 6, 1991, the plaintiff’s motion to substitute party plaintiff was granted substituting New Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, N.A., as plaintiff to reflect its appointment as receiver of Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, N.A. The defendants disclosed that they had no defenses to the plaintiff’s action and a judgment of strict foreclosure entered on May 6, 1991. The trial court found the debt as of the date of judgment to be $444,640.48 plus attorney’s fees of $3150 and costs of $3190.20. The law day was set for July 8,1991, and title to the property vested in the plaintiff on July 10, 1991.

On July 16, 1991, the plaintiff filed a motion for a deficiency judgment. At the hearing, the plaintiff presented evidence, based on the leased fee method, that the property’s value on July 10, 1991, was $300,000. The defendants presented evidence, based on the fee simple method, that the property’s value on July 10, 1991, was $405,000. The court found the value of the property on July 10, 1991, to be $300,000.² The court [15]*15then rendered a deficiency judgment in the amount of $174,968.84 plus additional costs of $800.

The defendants contend that the trial court improperly used the leased fee value of the property for the purposes of the deficiency judgment rather than the fee simple value of the property. The trial court’s memorandum of decision, however, does not contain any findings regarding the valuation technique it used in arriving at this figure. While it is true that the court’s conclusion coincides with the “leased fee” method, the court does not articulate its reason for arriving at such a figure. Thus, the factual basis for the court’s decision is unclear.

“ ‘[W]hen a party seeks a further articulation of the factual basis of the trial court’s decision or the inclusion in the memorandum of decision of the trial court’s rulings on claims of law properly presented, he should file a motion with the trial court under Practice Book § [4051] setting forth the specific factual issues he seeks to have resolved and the claims of law he seeks to have included.’ ” Augeri v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 24 Conn. App. 172, 178, 586 A.2d 635, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 904, 588 A.2d 1383 (1991), quoting Pandolphe’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217, 222 n.5, 435 A.2d 24 (1980). “It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review.” Practice Book § 4061; DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671, 681, 458 A.2d 362 (1983); Augeri v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra. Under normal circumstances, this court will not remand a case to correct a deficiency the appellant should have remedied. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 188 Conn. 736, 739 n.9, 453 A.2d 1151 (1982); Scherr v. Scherr, 183 Conn. 366, 368, 439 A.2d 375 (1981); North Park Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Pinette, 27 Conn. App. 628, 632, 608 A.2d 714 (1992).

[16]*16In this case, the plaintiff failed to seek articulation as to the method employed by the court to determine the property’s value. The record is unclear as to which method of valuation the court utilized to ascertain that the value of the property on July 10,1991, was $300,000. Therefore, the record fails to provide an adequate basis for our review of the trial court’s findings. Under these circumstances, we have no basis on which to determine whether the trial court’s conclusions were proper. Urban v. Leggio, 1 Conn. App. 226, 228, 470 A.2d 1226 (1984). Without an adequate record on which to review the findings of the trial court, this court must assume that the trial court acted properly. Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 267, 413 A.2d 854 (1979); Johnson v. Newell, 160 Conn. 269, 277, 278 A.2d 776 (1971); State v. James L., 26 Conn App. 81, 86, 598 A.2d 663 (1991).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Landau, J.

The defendants¹ appeal from the deficiency judgment rendered against them by the trial court. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly used the leased fee value of the prop[14]*14erty for the purposes of the deficiency judgment rather than the fee simple value of the property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The subject property is a commercially zoned parcel located at 131 Dwight Street in New Haven. In September of 1990, the plaintiff, Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, N.A., filed a writ against the defendants seeking a strict foreclosure of its mortgage on the subject property. The mortgage secured the defendants’ $390,000 commercial mortgage note to the plaintiff dated January 15, 1988. On May 6, 1991, the plaintiff’s motion to substitute party plaintiff was granted substituting New Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, N.A., as plaintiff to reflect its appointment as receiver of Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, N.A. The defendants disclosed that they had no defenses to the plaintiff’s action and a judgment of strict foreclosure entered on May 6, 1991. The trial court found the debt as of the date of judgment to be $444,640.48 plus attorney’s fees of $3150 and costs of $3190.20. The law day was set for July 8,1991, and title to the property vested in the plaintiff on July 10, 1991.

On July 16, 1991, the plaintiff filed a motion for a deficiency judgment. At the hearing, the plaintiff presented evidence, based on the leased fee method, that the property’s value on July 10, 1991, was $300,000. The defendants presented evidence, based on the fee simple method, that the property’s value on July 10, 1991, was $405,000. The court found the value of the property on July 10, 1991, to be $300,000.² The court [15]*15then rendered a deficiency judgment in the amount of $174,968.84 plus additional costs of $800.

The defendants contend that the trial court improperly used the leased fee value of the property for the purposes of the deficiency judgment rather than the fee simple value of the property. The trial court’s memorandum of decision, however, does not contain any findings regarding the valuation technique it used in arriving at this figure. While it is true that the court’s conclusion coincides with the “leased fee” method, the court does not articulate its reason for arriving at such a figure. Thus, the factual basis for the court’s decision is unclear.

“ ‘[W]hen a party seeks a further articulation of the factual basis of the trial court’s decision or the inclusion in the memorandum of decision of the trial court’s rulings on claims of law properly presented, he should file a motion with the trial court under Practice Book § [4051] setting forth the specific factual issues he seeks to have resolved and the claims of law he seeks to have included.’ ” Augeri v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 24 Conn. App. 172, 178, 586 A.2d 635, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 904, 588 A.2d 1383 (1991), quoting Pandolphe’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217, 222 n.5, 435 A.2d 24 (1980). “It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review.” Practice Book § 4061; DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671, 681, 458 A.2d 362 (1983); Augeri v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra. Under normal circumstances, this court will not remand a case to correct a deficiency the appellant should have remedied. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 188 Conn. 736, 739 n.9, 453 A.2d 1151 (1982); Scherr v. Scherr, 183 Conn. 366, 368, 439 A.2d 375 (1981); North Park Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Pinette, 27 Conn. App. 628, 632, 608 A.2d 714 (1992).

[16]*16In this case, the plaintiff failed to seek articulation as to the method employed by the court to determine the property’s value. The record is unclear as to which method of valuation the court utilized to ascertain that the value of the property on July 10,1991, was $300,000. Therefore, the record fails to provide an adequate basis for our review of the trial court’s findings. Under these circumstances, we have no basis on which to determine whether the trial court’s conclusions were proper. Urban v. Leggio, 1 Conn. App. 226, 228, 470 A.2d 1226 (1984). Without an adequate record on which to review the findings of the trial court, this court must assume that the trial court acted properly. Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 267, 413 A.2d 854 (1979); Johnson v. Newell, 160 Conn. 269, 277, 278 A.2d 776 (1971); State v. James L., 26 Conn App. 81, 86, 598 A.2d 663 (1991).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 A.2d 954, 32 Conn. App. 13, 1993 Conn. App. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-bank-trust-co-v-linsky-connappct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack