DocketNumber: No. CV93 0063855
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 6962, 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 881
Judges: DRANGINIS, J.
Filed Date: 7/25/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On May 5, 1993, the plaintiff obtained a judgment in its favor against the defendant, Gerald A. Bisceglio. The plaintiff placed a judgment lien for the sum of $113,379.28 plus costs and attorney fees against the defendant's property at 64 Zappulla Drive in Torrington. On April 25, 1994 the plaintiff received a judgment of strict foreclosure and its debt was found to be $124,499.21, plus attorney fees and costs. At the time of foreclosure, the subject property was appraised at $90,000.00. Defendant Bisceglio CT Page 6963 failed to redeem on the law day of May 24, 1994 and title vested in the plaintiff on May 24, 1994.
On June 6, 1994, pursuant to General Statutes §
General Statutes §
[t]he foreclosure of a mortgage is a bar to any further action upon the mortgage debt, note or obligation against the person or persons who are liable for the payment thereof who are made parties to the foreclosure and also against any person or persons upon whom service of process to constitute an action in personam could have been made within this state at the commencement of the foreclosure; but the foreclosure is not a bar to any further action upon the mortgage debt, note or obligation as to any person liable for the payment thereof upon whom service of process to constitute an action in personam could not have been made within this state at the commencement of the foreclosure. The judgment in each such case shall state the names of all persons upon whom service of process has been made as herein provided.
General Statutes §
In his memorandum of law in opposition to the deficiency judgment, the defendant recognizes that a judgment lien may be foreclosed in the same manner as a mortgage on the same property.Fairfield Plumbing Heating Supply Corporation v. Kosa,
The defendant, however, has misinterpreted General Statutes CT Page 6964 §
There is no doubt that co-makers and endorsers must be parties to the foreclosure if the plaintiff seeks to hold them liable on the note. General Statutes §
49-1 mandates that. . . . If the mortgagee is not willing to take the property mortgaged as full payment for his debt, he has only to make all persons to whom he may wish to resort for further payment parties to his foreclosure suit.
Connecticut National Bank v. Granby Griffin Road Associates,
In the present case, the plaintiff has properly made defendant Bisceglio a party to its foreclosure action. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not barred by General Statutes §