DocketNumber: No. CV97-0329995 S CT Page 3628
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3627
Judges: MORAGHAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/22/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendants oppose the motion on the ground that they attempted to pay a monthly installment in June of 1997, but the plaintiff returned the defendants' check. This contention might have some validity if the defendants reasonably believed that it would have been futile to continue tendering monthly installments. See Bankers Trust Co. v. Mednick, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. 254012 (November 2, 1998, Beach, J.). The evidence submitted by the parties, however, reveals that subsequent attempts to make payments would not have been futile.
The defendants' payment was refused because the check did not contain sufficient information to enable the plaintiff to identify the proper loan account. The plaintiff would have readily accepted the June payment and any subsequent payment if the defendants had simply provided information that identified the loan such as the loan number. Thus, even if the defendants evidence is considered, the plaintiff would still be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2
The plaintiff's motion is, accordingly, granted.
Moraghan, J.