Onthank v. Onthank


*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** JOHN B. ONTHANK v. PIERCE ONTHANK ET AL. (AC 43949) Moll, Clark and Eveleigh, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff sought to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, alleging that the defendants had failed to make all payments required under a promissory note. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on his breach of contract claim and rejected the defendants’ special defenses, including their defense that the plaintiff failed to allege or establish that he had fulfilled every condition precedent prior to bringing an action on the promissory note. On the defendants’ appeal to this court, held: 1. This court affirmed the judgment of the trial court as to the breach of contract claim on the ground that the plaintiff substantially complied with the notice of default provision in the promissory note under the circumstances of this case; although the plaintiff did not send the letter declaring default by certified mail, as required by the notice provision in the promissory note, there was no contractual requirement of proof of actual delivery, the defendants did not contest that they had actual notice of the declaration of default, and any noncompliance by the plaintiff with the requisite method of delivery as provided in the promis- sory note did not result in any prejudice to the defendants. 2. The trial court’s award of damages was not clearly erroneous, as there was ample evidence in the record to support its finding that the defen- dants were not entitled to a $120,000 credit for the purported value of certain stock provided to the plaintiff as security; the share value for the stock claimed by the defendants was based on market transactions in December, 2015, but the plaintiff did not have an obligation under the note to sell the shares until after he declared a default in September, 2016, the defendants provided no evidence as to the value …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments