Fortier v. Newington Group, Inc., No. 350771 (Feb. 5, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Fortier v. Newington Group, Inc., No. 350771 (Feb. 5, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1839

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 5, 1992

DocketNo. 350771

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1839 (Fortier v. Newington Group, Inc., No. 350771 (Feb. 5, 1992)) 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

Fortier v. Newington Group, Inc., No. 350771 (Feb. 5, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1839 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION In the above inter-pleader action, the owner of commercial property in Newington and a potential purchaser thereof have filed claims to the deposit funds of $45,000.

On June 21, 1988, the plaintiff and defendants entered into an option agreement (Ex.A) prepared by the plaintiff without benefit of legal counsel. Said option provided in paragraph 7 Title, in pertinent part: "The Premises shall be conveyed absolutely free and clear of all liens, easements and encumbrances. Title is to be of good record title and, if (sic) fact merchantable and insurable by a reputable title insurance company at standard rates . . . ."

On August 17, 1988, counsel for the defendants notified the plaintiff that the property was subject to four easements, and requested plaintiff to remedy them as defects in title. By reply, counsel for the plaintiff responded that the title to the premises was of good record and insurable by a reputable title insurance company at standard rates (Ex.E). See Sec.38a-402 (15) of the General Statutes. In support, the plaintiff offered a loan policy issued on the premises by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (Ex.G). The plaintiff offered evidence that there were no subsequent changes in title. Said policy noted four easements on the premises but provided that the exercise of any rights in any such easement will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property nor with the improvements as presently located on the insured premises.

In brief, the plaintiff was willing to provide the title described in the second sentence of Paragraph 7. The defendant demanded title in accordance with the first sentence. The two sentences are in conflict. There was no meeting of the minds as to the quality of title; hence, no contract. The Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company v. Jackson, et al, 24 Conn. 514, 516.

Judgment may enter in favor of the claimant, Newington CT Page 1840 Group, Inc., for return of its deposit after deduction of reasonable counsel fees and disbursements due to the stakeholder. All other requested relief is denied.

BURNS, 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 In the above inter-pleader action, the owner of commercial property in Newington and a potential purchaser thereof have filed claims to the deposit funds of $45,000.

On June 21, 1988, the plaintiff and defendants entered into an option agreement (Ex.A) prepared by the plaintiff without benefit of legal counsel. Said option provided in paragraph 7 Title, in pertinent part: "The Premises shall be conveyed absolutely free and clear of all liens, easements and encumbrances. Title is to be of good record title and, if (sic) fact merchantable and insurable by a reputable title insurance company at standard rates . . . ."

On August 17, 1988, counsel for the defendants notified the plaintiff that the property was subject to four easements, and requested plaintiff to remedy them as defects in title. By reply, counsel for the plaintiff responded that the title to the premises was of good record and insurable by a reputable title insurance company at standard rates (Ex.E). See Sec.38a-402 (15) of the General Statutes. In support, the plaintiff offered a loan policy issued on the premises by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (Ex.G). The plaintiff offered evidence that there were no subsequent changes in title. Said policy noted four easements on the premises but provided that the exercise of any rights in any such easement will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property nor with the improvements as presently located on the insured premises.

In brief, the plaintiff was willing to provide the title described in the second sentence of Paragraph 7. The defendant demanded title in accordance with the first sentence. The two sentences are in conflict. There was no meeting of the minds as to the quality of title; hence, no contract. The Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company v. Jackson, et al, 24 Conn. 514, 516.

Judgment may enter in favor of the claimant, Newington CT Page 1840 Group, Inc., for return of its deposit after deduction of reasonable counsel fees and disbursements due to the stakeholder. All other requested relief is denied.

BURNS, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortier-v-newington-group-inc-no-350771-feb-5-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack