Ponds Homeowners Ass'n v. Ponds, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Ponds Homeowners Ass'n v. Ponds, Inc.

625 A.2d 1377, 226 Conn. 905, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 177

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMay 26, 1993

DocketSC 14783

StatusPublished

This text of 625 A.2d 1377 (Ponds Homeowners Ass'n v. Ponds, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ponds Homeowners Ass'n v. Ponds, Inc., 625 A.2d 1377, 226 Conn. 905, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 177 (Colo. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 919 (AC 11342), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the Appellate Court correct in upholding the trial court’s determination that probable cause existed that the defendant The Ponds, Inc., fraudulently transferred, without consideration, certain condominium units to the individual codefendants (and Pomeroy Properties) where the only evidence in support were Real Estate Conveyance tax forms which were rebutted by evidence of a note and mortgage?

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in upholding the trial court’s determination that probable cause existed that the individual defendants breached their May 11, 1989 agreement contrary to the statements of plaintiff’s counsel that he was not pursuing defendants under the counts of the complaint pertaining to that agreement and contrary to the evidence?”

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

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 919 (AC 11342), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the Appellate Court correct in upholding the trial court’s determination that probable cause existed that the defendant The Ponds, Inc., fraudulently transferred, without consideration, certain condominium units to the individual codefendants (and Pomeroy Properties) where the only evidence in support were Real Estate Conveyance tax forms which were rebutted by evidence of a note and mortgage?

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in upholding the trial court’s determination that probable cause existed that the individual defendants breached their May 11, 1989 agreement contrary to the statements of plaintiff’s counsel that he was not pursuing defendants under the counts of the complaint pertaining to that agreement and contrary to the evidence?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

625 A.2d 1377, 226 Conn. 905, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponds-homeowners-assn-v-ponds-inc-conn-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack