DocketNumber: No. 31 74 81
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7147
Judges: STODOLINK, J.
Filed Date: 6/7/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The complaint alleges that on September 15, 1986, Robert G. Gross, Carol A. Dellebovi Gross, and Donald L. St. John, Jr. executed a promissory note wherein they agreed to pay the plaintiff the principal amount of $90,000. To partially guarantee payment of the referenced note, the complaint alleges that both Leonard A. Berry ("Berry") and Kenneth A Krieger ("Krieger") mortgaged to the plaintiff certain condominium units located in Danbury, Connecticut. The complaint alleges that despite making demand upon the defendants, the principal amount of the note, plus interest, remains outstanding.
On January 13, 1995, the Grosses, St. John and Krieger ("defendants") filed revised first special defense alleging the following:
In the matter of Brookside of Danbury Association, Inc. vs. Kenneth A. Krieger, a/k/a Kenneth A. Kreiger, et al., docket number CV-91-0306601-S, in the Judicial District of Danbury, at Danbury, on January 27, 1992, Brookside of Danbury Association, Inc., obtained a Judgment of Foreclosure.
Said Judgment provided therein that the various mortgage holders, including the plaintiff in this matter, Paul G. Pettit, have law days which constituted rights of redemption.
On February 27, 1992, that being the date upon which the plaintiff, Paul G. Pettit, had the right to redeem, did, in fact, redeem CT Page 7148 and obtained a Satisfaction of Judgment.
The redemption by the plaintiff, Paul G. Pettit, and the subsequent failure, within 30 days of redemption, to move for a deficiency judgment as set forth in Title 49, Section 14 of the C.G.S.A., barred the plaintiff Pettit from any further action on the note.
On February 14, 1995, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the revised first special defense "for the reason that it fails to state a . . . [claim] upon which relief may be granted."1 The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of law in support of his motion.2
The purpose of the motion to strike is to challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint. Gordon v.Bridgeport Housing Authority,
The plaintiff argues in his supporting memorandum that he is not precluded by section
Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion to strike is denied.
Stodolink, J. CT Page 7149