DocketNumber: No. CV 95-03806 13S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 4380
Judges: DEVLIN, JUDGE
Filed Date: 4/27/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Although the series of financial transactions relating to this lawsuit are complicated, for purposes of this summary judgment motion they may be summarized as follows.
Suna Associates, Inc. borrowed $2,378,000.00 from the Connecticut Savings Bank to be used to develop a piece of real estate. In connection with the loan, the Connecticut Savings Bank required Celentano and Sachs each to guarantee one half of the loan amount ($1,289,000.00). Prior to the loan being made, but after the bank had issued a commitment letter, the stockholders of Suna entered into an agreement. The agreement referenced the loan and required guarantees by Celentano and Sachs and provided that (1) each stockholder would be liable for repayment of the loan up to a maximum of $1,289,000.00 and (2) that among the stockholders their rights of contribution and reimbursement would be based on their percentage of stock interest in the corporation. At the time that this agreement was executed, Celentano owned 21.1111% of the stock in Suna and Sachs owned 16.6667%. CT Page 4381
Suna defaulted on the loan and the bank foreclosed on the property. Ultimately, the FDIC, as receiver of the Connecticut Savings Bank, obtained a deficiency judgment against Suna for $1,696,244.93. Pursuant to the guarantees, the FDIC also obtained judgments against Celentano and Sachs for $1,289,000.00 each. Thereafter Celentano paid $850,000.00 to the FDIC and was released from personal liability on the judgments. The FDIC did not release Sachs, Suna or any other Suna stockholder.
Based on his payment to the FDIC, Celentano commenced the present lawsuit seeking contribution from the other Suna stockholders. Celentano claims that his payment of $850,000.00 exceeded his 21.1111% share of the debt based on the stockholder's agreement which, as described above, tied rights of contribution to each stockholder's percentage ownership of the corporation.
Sachs argues that claims of contribution as to him must be based on the guarantee agreement with the bank and not on the stockholder's agreement. He further claims that with respect to the guarantee, Celentano has not paid more than his equitable share because Sachs remains liable for one half of the deficiency judgment plus interest.
Summary judgment "is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way." Miller v. UnitedTechnologies Corp. ,
Neither party disputes the well-established rule in Connecticut that a guarantor is only entitled to reimbursement or contribution from a co-guarantor if the guarantor paid an amount in excess of his proportionate share of the obligation. BristolBank Trust Co. v. Broderick,
Based on the present record, there exists an issue of material fact as to the intent of the contracting parties. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.
So Ordered at New Haven, Connecticut this 26th day of April 1999.
Robert J. Devlin, Jr., Judge