Fleet National Bank v. Menge, No. Cv 35 76 50 S (Feb. 23, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Fleet National Bank v. Menge, No. Cv 35 76 50 S (Feb. 23, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 2214

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 23, 1999

DocketNo. CV 35 76 50 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 2214 (Fleet National Bank v. Menge, No. Cv 35 76 50 S (Feb. 23, 1999)) 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

Fleet National Bank v. Menge, No. Cv 35 76 50 S (Feb. 23, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 2214 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE #108 The plaintiff, Fleet National Bank (Fleet), alleges that on June 29, 1987, the defendants, James E. Menge and Catherine Menge (defendants),¹ became indebted to Connecticut National Mortgage Company in the amount of $110,000 as evidenced by a promissory note.² To secure the note, the defendants signed an open-end mortgage on June 9, 1987 on the property and premises located at 70 Dixon Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Fleet alleges that the defendants have failed to make payment on CT Page 2215 the note since June 1, 1998, and that pursuant to the note, the entire amount is now due.

The defendants have asserted five special defenses which allege in their entirety: "1. The Plaintiff has breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 2. The Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages. 3. The Plaintiff comes to court with unclean hands. 4. The Menges reserve their right to challenge both the amount of and the calculation of any claimed debt pursuant to Suffield Bank v. Berman, 25 Conn. App. 369 (1991). 5. The Menges reserve any and all rights they may have including, but not limited to, issues of priority, disbursement of sale proceeds, valuation of the subject premises and/or assignment of law days."

The motion to strike the first four special defenses is granted on the ground that each fails to state any supporting facts and are mere legal conclusions. "A motion to strike is properly granted if the [pleading] alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged." NovametrixMedical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210, 215,618 A.2d 25 (1992).

Fleet's motion to strike the fifth special defense is granted on the ground that it does not state a recognized defense to a foreclosure action. The fifth special defense does not attack the making, validity or enforcement of the note or mortgage. SeeBerkeley Federal Bank Trust v. Rotko, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 318648 (January 25, 1996, West, J.).

BALLEN, JUDGE

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 RE: MOTION TO STRIKE #108 The plaintiff, Fleet National Bank (Fleet), alleges that on June 29, 1987, the defendants, James E. Menge and Catherine Menge (defendants),¹ became indebted to Connecticut National Mortgage Company in the amount of $110,000 as evidenced by a promissory note.² To secure the note, the defendants signed an open-end mortgage on June 9, 1987 on the property and premises located at 70 Dixon Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Fleet alleges that the defendants have failed to make payment on CT Page 2215 the note since June 1, 1998, and that pursuant to the note, the entire amount is now due.

The defendants have asserted five special defenses which allege in their entirety: "1. The Plaintiff has breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 2. The Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages. 3. The Plaintiff comes to court with unclean hands. 4. The Menges reserve their right to challenge both the amount of and the calculation of any claimed debt pursuant to Suffield Bank v. Berman, 25 Conn. App. 369 (1991). 5. The Menges reserve any and all rights they may have including, but not limited to, issues of priority, disbursement of sale proceeds, valuation of the subject premises and/or assignment of law days."

The motion to strike the first four special defenses is granted on the ground that each fails to state any supporting facts and are mere legal conclusions. "A motion to strike is properly granted if the [pleading] alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged." NovametrixMedical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210, 215,618 A.2d 25 (1992).

Fleet's motion to strike the fifth special defense is granted on the ground that it does not state a recognized defense to a foreclosure action. The fifth special defense does not attack the making, validity or enforcement of the note or mortgage. SeeBerkeley Federal Bank Trust v. Rotko, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 318648 (January 25, 1996, West, J.).

BALLEN, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 2214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleet-national-bank-v-menge-no-cv-35-76-50-s-feb-23-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack