Hobby v. Feldman

Connecticut Appellate Court

Hobby v. Feldman

482 A.2d 1226, 2 Conn. App. 696, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 710

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

Docket2268

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 482 A.2d 1226 (Hobby v. Feldman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hobby v. Feldman, 482 A.2d 1226, 2 Conn. App. 696, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 710 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs, by their complaint, sought a judgment declaring invalid the mortgage held by the defendants on the real property of the plaintiffs. The defendants, by their counterclaim, sought damages from the plaintiffs for failure to pay amounts due under an agreement. The agreement created the obligation for which the mortgage held by the defendants was security. The trial court issued a factually detailed memorandum of decision and rendered judgment for the defendants on the complaint and on the counterclaim. We have carefully considered the claims of error of the [697]*697plaintiffs on appeal¹ and find them to be without merit. They amount to an attempt to persuade us to retry the facts found by the trial court, which are amply supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs, by their complaint, sought a judgment declaring invalid the mortgage held by the defendants on the real property of the plaintiffs. The defendants, by their counterclaim, sought damages from the plaintiffs for failure to pay amounts due under an agreement. The agreement created the obligation for which the mortgage held by the defendants was security. The trial court issued a factually detailed memorandum of decision and rendered judgment for the defendants on the complaint and on the counterclaim. We have carefully considered the claims of error of the [697]*697plaintiffs on appeal¹ and find them to be without merit. They amount to an attempt to persuade us to retry the facts found by the trial court, which are amply supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 A.2d 1226, 2 Conn. App. 696, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobby-v-feldman-connappct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack