Legal Opinion · Dissent
Dime Savings Bank v. Cornaglia
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 8, 1994No. 12098Published
1DissentLavery, J.
Because the facts of this case, established by the record, reveal manifest injustice, I respectfully dissent.
The facts of this case are undisputed. The defendant Rose Marie Cornaglia mortgaged her home to The *557Dime Savings Bank of Wallingford so that her son, Carl, and his wife, Lucy, could buy property in Wallingford known as parcel B. Although Carl and Lucy signed a note promising to pay the bank $150,000, Rose never signed the note. Rose mortgaged her home because the bank wanted more security than the mortgages on parcel B and Carl and Lucy’s house at 58 North Branford Road in Wallingford.1
2Cases cited25 opinions
- American Surety Co. v. Bethlehem National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Lauer v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Cross v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Carothers v. CapozzielloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. SullivanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.