Imc Mortgage Company v. Pettway, No. Cv98 035 45 60 (May 7, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6355
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMay 7, 1999
DocketNo. CV98 035 45 60
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6355 (Imc Mortgage Company v. Pettway, No. Cv98 035 45 60 (May 7, 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
Imc Mortgage Company v. Pettway, No. Cv98 035 45 60 (May 7, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6355 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (#107)
First Special Defense. Denied. The rule enunciated in Dubinsky v.Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. 48 Conn. App. 52 (1998) is limited to a strict lender-borrower relationship. It cannot be extended to apply to the factual allegations of this case in which the plaintiff is the assignee of a purchase money mortgage wherein the assignor was the seller-lender. It is axiomatic that an assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Additionally, the purpose of the appraisal in Dubinsky was for the sole purpose of enabling the lender to decide whether to make the loan. In the subject case the purpose of the appraisal was to induce the purchaser to buy.

Second Special Defense. Granted. The failure to allege that the plaintiff knew the appraisal to be untrue constitutes a fatal omission of one of the essential elements of the tort of intentional misrepresentation. Paiva v. Vanech HeightsConstruction Co. 159 Conn. 512. 515 (1970).

Third Special Defense. Denied. The acts described relate to the making enforcement and validity of the note because if the sale and consequently the mortgage were induced by false misrepresentations upon which the defendant relied, then the transaction may be held to have been invalid in the making.Boretz v. Segar 124 Conn. 320 (1938); Knutson Mortgage Corp. v.Williams CV 96-0334486 S J.D. Fairfield at Bridgeport, 1997 (West).

MOTTOLESE, J.

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

Related

Paiva v. Vanech Heights Construction Co.
271 A.2d 69 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1970)
Boretz v. Segar
199 A. 548 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1938)
Dubinsky v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.
708 A.2d 226 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imc-mortgage-company-v-pettway-no-cv98-035-45-60-may-7-1999-connsuperct-1999.