Connecticut Savings Bank v. Melnick

Connecticut Superior Court

Connecticut Savings Bank v. Melnick

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 387, 7 Conn. Supp. 387, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 129

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 7, 1939

DocketFile 57619

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 387 (Connecticut Savings Bank v. Melnick) 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

Connecticut Savings Bank v. Melnick, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 387, 7 Conn. Supp. 387, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 129 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

McEVOY, J.

Joseph Melnick is a defendant and a son of the original owner. The original owner was also the mortgagor. She is no longer alive. The defendant Joseph Melnick is an heir of hers. Upon the death of his mother, Esther Melnick,. *388 “the law cast” upon Joseph Melnick, son of the deceased, a part ■of the title. He is therefore, as to the plaintiff, an owner and not subject to rent until, at least, the plaintiff has taken possession and has obtained legal right to possession to the exclusion •of this named defendant.

As authority for the proposition that this court may order the receiver to collect rent of this resident part owner, citation is made of Hall vs. Meriden Trust & Safe Deposit Company, 103 Conn. 226, 236.

That case bears no resemblance to the instant case. In that •case the administrator was surcharged in the probate court because he permitted two daughters to occupy a house which belonged to the deceased, a.nd it was there held that it was the duty of the administrator to rent the property and that, if he permitted the two daughters to live there he should have collected rents from them, otherwise he would be personally responsible for the reasonable value of the rent. In that case the administrator was the representative of the deceased owner, whose estate he was administering. In this case the mortgagee is attempting to foreclose and a receiver is acting for the benefit •of all parties concerned. Under these different circumstances the receiver may not charge the part owner for rent until something further develops. The receiver is therefore advised not to attempt to collect rents from the present named part owner, Joseph Melnick, until the circumstances are legally altered.

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

McEVOY, J.

Joseph Melnick is a defendant and a son of the original owner. The original owner was also the mortgagor. She is no longer alive. The defendant Joseph Melnick is an heir of hers. Upon the death of his mother, Esther Melnick,. *388 “the law cast” upon Joseph Melnick, son of the deceased, a part ■of the title. He is therefore, as to the plaintiff, an owner and not subject to rent until, at least, the plaintiff has taken possession and has obtained legal right to possession to the exclusion •of this named defendant.

As authority for the proposition that this court may order the receiver to collect rent of this resident part owner, citation is made of Hall vs. Meriden Trust & Safe Deposit Company, 103 Conn. 226, 236.

That case bears no resemblance to the instant case. In that •case the administrator was surcharged in the probate court because he permitted two daughters to occupy a house which belonged to the deceased, a.nd it was there held that it was the duty of the administrator to rent the property and that, if he permitted the two daughters to live there he should have collected rents from them, otherwise he would be personally responsible for the reasonable value of the rent. In that case the administrator was the representative of the deceased owner, whose estate he was administering. In this case the mortgagee is attempting to foreclose and a receiver is acting for the benefit •of all parties concerned. Under these different circumstances the receiver may not charge the part owner for rent until something further develops. The receiver is therefore advised not to attempt to collect rents from the present named part owner, Joseph Melnick, until the circumstances are legally altered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 387, 7 Conn. Supp. 387, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-savings-bank-v-melnick-connsuperct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack