DocketNumber: No. CV91-0503184S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 866, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 257
Judges: SATTER, STATE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 1/14/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The facts are as follows: The return day of this action is November 5, 1991. Defendant filed his application from protection from foreclosure on November 20, 1991. This is within fifteen days of the November 5, 1991 return day so plaintiff's first objection is without merit.
Plaintiff's complaint is in two counts: the first count alleges a note and mortgage deed executed by defendant McCormack in favor of Sanborn Corporation, which were assigned to plaintiff, ownership of note and mortgage by plaintiff, defendant's default of an installment of principal and interest on May 1, 1991, plaintiff's exercise of the option of acceleration of the debt, subsequent conveyance by defendant McCormack of a one-half interest in the property to defendants William J. and Candace C. O'Brien, and a subsequent mortgage encumbrance. The second count alleges the conveyance by defendant McCormack to defendants William J. and Candace C. O'Brien was made to avoid the debt owed the plaintiff and in accepting the conveyance defendants O'Brien aided, abetted and conspired with defendant McCormack for that purpose.
On December 5, 1991 defendant McCormack, per se, filed an answer admitting the allegations of the first count and interposed a special defense to the second count denying an intent to conspire to avoid repayment of the debt.
In its complaint plaintiff seeks a foreclosure of the mortgage and other foreclosure relief clearly based upon allegations of the first count, and an order that the conveyance to defendants O'Brien be set aside and a declaration that it be declared null and void as to plaintiff clearly based on allegations of the second count.
Section
In this case, defendant McCormack filed his application for protection on November 20, 1991 and his answer on December 5, 1991. Reading
Moreover in this case defendant McCormack interposed no CT Page 868 defense to the plaintiff's first count for foreclosure; his defense was as to the second count for fraudulent conveyance. Thus
Defendant's objection to plaintiff's application is overruled. This court will hear the application on its merits.
R. SATTER STATE TRIAL REFEREE