McCann v. Stamberg, No. Cv01-034 13 66 S (Aug. 27, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

McCann v. Stamberg, No. Cv01-034 13 66 S (Aug. 27, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11708

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 27, 2001

DocketNo. CV01-034 13 66 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11708 (McCann v. Stamberg, No. Cv01-034 13 66 S (Aug. 27, 2001)) 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

McCann v. Stamberg, No. Cv01-034 13 66 S (Aug. 27, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11708 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE The defendant, Frank Stamberg, filed a motion to strike count two of the amended complaint on April 12, 2001. The action arises out of a contract to purchase a home. The complaint alleges that the defendant sellers violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by refusing to return the deposit after one of the defendant sellers committed suicide in the home and the plaintiffs rescinded the purchase. The defendant argues that the plaintiff, in alleging a CUTPA violation, improperly premises the claim on a simple breach of contract theory without alleging any aggravating circumstances. The court agrees and therefore grants the defendant's motion to strike.¹ See EmleeEquipment Leasing Corporation v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc.,41 Conn. Sup. 575, 580, 595 A.2d 951 (1991), rev'd on other grounds,31 Conn. App. 455, 626 A.2d 307 (1993); Morris v. Brookside Commons Ltd.Part., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. 581130 (February 2, 2000, Stengel, J.); Benvenuti Oil Co. v. FossConsultants, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 542755 (April 6, 1999, Mihalakos, J.).

Holden, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE The defendant, Frank Stamberg, filed a motion to strike count two of the amended complaint on April 12, 2001. The action arises out of a contract to purchase a home. The complaint alleges that the defendant sellers violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by refusing to return the deposit after one of the defendant sellers committed suicide in the home and the plaintiffs rescinded the purchase. The defendant argues that the plaintiff, in alleging a CUTPA violation, improperly premises the claim on a simple breach of contract theory without alleging any aggravating circumstances. The court agrees and therefore grants the defendant's motion to strike.¹ See EmleeEquipment Leasing Corporation v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc.,41 Conn. Sup. 575, 580, 595 A.2d 951 (1991), rev'd on other grounds,31 Conn. App. 455, 626 A.2d 307 (1993); Morris v. Brookside Commons Ltd.Part., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. 581130 (February 2, 2000, Stengel, J.); Benvenuti Oil Co. v. FossConsultants, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 542755 (April 6, 1999, Mihalakos, J.).

Holden, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccann-v-stamberg-no-cv01-034-13-66-s-aug-27-2001-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack