Legal Opinion
Holly Hill Holdings v. Lowman
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided January 14, 1993No. 10746; 11135PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDupont, C. J.
This is an action to foreclose a purchase money mortgage. The defendants pleaded several special defenses and counterclaims. The case was referred to an attorney trial referee who recommended foreclosure of the mortgage after first determining that the special defenses did not lie and that the counterclaims did not defeat the plaintiff’s right to foreclosure. The trial court reviewed the findings and conclusions of the attorney trial referee and rendered a judgment *206of strict foreclosure and a judgment for the plaintiff on the defendants’ counterclaims.1
The principal issue of this appeal is…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Connecticut Water Co. v. BeausoleilSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- City of Middletown v. Hartford Electric Light Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Alemany v. Commissioner of TransportationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Frank Towers Corp. v. LavianaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Frimberger v. AnzellottiConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Holly Hill Holdings v. LowmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Holly Hill Holdings v. LowmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Kurtzman-Violette Htg. v. Konover Const., No. Cv 940543571 (May 26, 1995)Connecticut Superior Court · 1995
- Limone v. Haag, No. Cv91 0115879 S (Jun. 29, 1994)Connecticut Superior Court · 1994
- Luginbuhl v. Hemond, No. Cv 96 61232 S (Feb. 10, 1997)Connecticut Superior Court · 1997