LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd. Partnertship

L

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** APPENDIX LPP MORTGAGE LTD. v. UNDERWOOD TOWERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL.* Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket File No. X03-CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum filed July 16, 2019 Proceedings Memorandum of decision in commercial foreclosure action. Judgment for plaintiff in part. Thomas W. Witherington, Nicholas P. Vegliante, John G. McJunkin, pro hac vice, and J. David Folds, pro hac vice, for the plaintiff. Richard P. Weinstein, for the named defendant et al. Opinion TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . 775 II. NOTE B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781 A. Claim that Plaintiff Never Had Posses- sion of Note B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782 B. Claim that Plaintiff Did Not Prove that Note B is lost and that Plaintiff is the Owner of the Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 1. Proof that Note B was Lost . . . . . 786 2. Proof that Plaintiff is the Owner of the Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788 IV. COUNT ONE: FORECLOSURE . . . . . . . . 789 A. Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 B. Default . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 1. Kaye Skinner’s Services. . . . . . . . 795 2. Management Fees . . . . . . …

Original document

Add comment

By

Recent Posts

Recent Comments