DocketNumber: No. 361479
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1365-BBB
Judges: DeMAYO, STATE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 2/20/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In response to the plaintiff's action on a promissory note secured by a mortgage, the defendants have asserted two special defenses and two counterclaims. The defendants do not deny executing the note and mortgage.
In the course of the hearing on the plaintiff's Application For Prejudgment Remedy, the defendants sought to introduce a commitment letter from the plaintiff to the defendants, along with certain oral promises allegedly made by the plaintiff.
The basic fallacy in this proposition is that the note and mortgage can be considered a complete agreement in themselves and it is only the defendants' parol evidence and their version of the status of the commitment letter which suggests any deficiency, ambiguity or alternative meaning. It is significant that the letter pre-dates the note and mortgage and there is a presumption that the last documents comprise the final agreement of the parties.
Actually, the defendants seek to inject into the note conditions concerning repayment and the plaintiff's right to call the loan, items addressed in the note they admitted signing. CT Page 1365-CCC Again, it is presumed they knew what they were signing.
The defendants' claim here is that the parol evidence is necessary to illustrate the entire agreement. However, the note deals with the subject matter to which the letter refers and there is a complete agreement without resorting to its contents. Cohenv. Dun,
As the plaintiff notes in its brief, the plaintiff "does not have to establish that he will prevail, only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim." Tyler v. Schnable,
CONCLUSION CT Page 1365-DDD
The plaintiff's Application For A Prejudgment Remedy is granted.
Anthony V. DeMayo State Trial Referee