Langworthy v. Lanterman, No. Cv 01 74950 S (Mar. 1, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Langworthy v. Lanterman, No. Cv 01 74950 S (Mar. 1, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2701

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 1, 2002

DocketNo. CV 01 74950 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2701 (Langworthy v. Lanterman, No. Cv 01 74950 S (Mar. 1, 2002)) 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

Langworthy v. Lanterman, No. Cv 01 74950 S (Mar. 1, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2701 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

The defendants withdrew their motion as it relates to the second count alleging fraudulent misrepresentation.

As to the first count alleging breach of contract, there are issues of fact sufficiently in dispute, i.e., the intent of the parties as to the location of the property line. As the plaintiffs point out, this is not an action directed to changing the terms of the contract, but to determine if the parties contracted to convey a particular piece of property and, if they did, was that property conveyed. Richard v. A.Waldman Sons, Inc., 155 Conn. 343 (1967). CT Page 2702

These are not issues to be resolved by summary judgment.

Klaczak, J.

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