Dime Savings Bank v. Dash, No. 51052 (Nov. 5, 1990)

Connecticut Superior Court

Dime Savings Bank v. Dash, No. 51052 (Nov. 5, 1990)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4003

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 5, 1990

DocketNo. 51052

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4003 (Dime Savings Bank v. Dash, No. 51052 (Nov. 5, 1990)) 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

Dime Savings Bank v. Dash, No. 51052 (Nov. 5, 1990), 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4003 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff Dime Savings Bank claims an interest in the property in this foreclosure action by virtue of its note and mortgage dated July 22, 1987 in the principal amount of $224,000.00. The note and mortgage provided for the first payment to be made by the defendant Kenneth Dash on September 1, 1987. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant Dash failed to pay the September 1, 1987 payment and has failed to pay all amounts due since that time. The defendants Neal Landerman and Michael Wosczyna junior lienors assert the special defense of laches claiming that the plaintiff did not return its foreclosure action to court until September 5, 1989 and that such delay has resulted in prejudice to Landerman and Wosczyna.

The plaintiff has moved to strike the special defense of laches. However, the question of whether a party is guilty of laches is ordinarily a question of fact reserved for the trier of fact. Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303, 327 (1987); Papcun v. Papcun, 181 Conn. 618,621 (1980). Such a special defense raising issues of fact cannot properly be decided on a motion to strike. Flanagan v. CT Page 4004 Valente, 31 Conn. Sup. 143, 145 (1974).

Accordingly, the motion to strike should be and is denied.

McDONALD, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff Dime Savings Bank claims an interest in the property in this foreclosure action by virtue of its note and mortgage dated July 22, 1987 in the principal amount of $224,000.00. The note and mortgage provided for the first payment to be made by the defendant Kenneth Dash on September 1, 1987. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant Dash failed to pay the September 1, 1987 payment and has failed to pay all amounts due since that time. The defendants Neal Landerman and Michael Wosczyna junior lienors assert the special defense of laches claiming that the plaintiff did not return its foreclosure action to court until September 5, 1989 and that such delay has resulted in prejudice to Landerman and Wosczyna.

The plaintiff has moved to strike the special defense of laches. However, the question of whether a party is guilty of laches is ordinarily a question of fact reserved for the trier of fact. Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303, 327 (1987); Papcun v. Papcun, 181 Conn. 618,621 (1980). Such a special defense raising issues of fact cannot properly be decided on a motion to strike. Flanagan v. CT Page 4004 Valente, 31 Conn. Sup. 143, 145 (1974).

Accordingly, the motion to strike should be and is denied.

McDONALD, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-v-dash-no-51052-nov-5-1990-connsuperct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack