DocketNumber: No. 38 19 55
Judges: MALONEY, J. CT Page 7332
Filed Date: 8/12/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In the fourth counterclaim, the defendants allege that the plaintiff's demand for additional collateral and their subsequent demand for accelerated payment of the full principal constituted fraud. The elements of fraud have been repeatedly set forth by the courts. See Web Press Services Corporation v. New London Motor, Inc.,
In the fifth counterclaim, the defendants allege violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (CUTPA). The superior court is sharply divided on the issue whether CUTPA applies to banks. This court adopts the view that the statute does apply to banks and adopts the reasoning of the court in Economic Development Associates et al v. Cititrust, No. 052665 (Superior Court, Litchfield J.D.; March 27, 1991; Dranginis, J.).
In summary, for all of the above reasons, the plaintiff's motion with respect to the second special defense, and the first, second, third, and fifth counterclaims is denied; the plaintiff's motion with respect to the fourth counterclaim is granted.
MALONEY, J.