Great Western Bank v. Skiest, No. 69919 (Feb. 24, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Great Western Bank v. Skiest, No. 69919 (Feb. 24, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 1863

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1994

DocketNo. 69919

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 1863 (Great Western Bank v. Skiest, No. 69919 (Feb. 24, 1994)) 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

Great Western Bank v. Skiest, No. 69919 (Feb. 24, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 1863 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (116) After hearing held on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to defendant Harborwalk Association, Inc., it is hereby Ordered: granted; for the following reasons:

The mere fact that the defendant has pleaded what it describes as two special defenses does not insulate it from the summary relief which the plaintiff seeks or limit the scope of the remedy. P.B., Sec. 379. In the first place, the matters pleaded do not constitute recognized defenses to an action for mortgage foreclosure. See First Federal Savings Bank v. Zavatsky,8 CSCR 1128 (11-15-93). But, even if the defenses pleaded were proper, the defendant has filed no affidavits or documentary evidence in support of its position as required by our rules. P.B., Sec. 380. An evidentiary showing is indispensable, and general averments are not sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact. Farrell v. Farrell, 182 Conn. 34, 39 (1980). To put it another way, "a party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue. Connell v. Colwell, 214 Conn. 242, 246 (1990). This the defendant has failed to do.

GAFFNEY, J. CT Page 1864

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (116) After hearing held on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to defendant Harborwalk Association, Inc., it is hereby Ordered: granted; for the following reasons:

The mere fact that the defendant has pleaded what it describes as two special defenses does not insulate it from the summary relief which the plaintiff seeks or limit the scope of the remedy. P.B., Sec. 379. In the first place, the matters pleaded do not constitute recognized defenses to an action for mortgage foreclosure. See First Federal Savings Bank v. Zavatsky,8 CSCR 1128 (11-15-93). But, even if the defenses pleaded were proper, the defendant has filed no affidavits or documentary evidence in support of its position as required by our rules. P.B., Sec. 380. An evidentiary showing is indispensable, and general averments are not sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact. Farrell v. Farrell, 182 Conn. 34, 39 (1980). To put it another way, "a party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue. Connell v. Colwell, 214 Conn. 242, 246 (1990). This the defendant has failed to do.

GAFFNEY, J. CT Page 1864

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 1863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-western-bank-v-skiest-no-69919-feb-24-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack