Legal Opinion

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Fonte

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided April 28, 1998No. AC 16555PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SCHALLER, J.

The defendant Richard Matza1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court holding him liable *533on a promissory note. The note was secured by real estate located in Arizona that was disposed of in a trustee’s sale proceeding initiated by the plaintiff2 prior to the commencement of this action. The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court improperly determined (1) that the trustee’s sale proceeding of the Arizona property did not bar1 this subsequent action on the note, (2) the amount of the damages, and (3) that the amount of $35,000 paid by a co-obligor on the judgment…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  2. A. UBERTI & C. v. Leonardo in & for PIMAArizona Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Ferrigno v. Cromwell Development AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. New England Savings Bank v. LopezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Federal Deposit Insurance v. FonteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  2. Meriden v. Freedom of Information CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
  3. R.I. Waterman Properties v. Zascirinskis, No. Cv98 061380 (Apr. 6, 1999)Connecticut Superior Court · 1999
  4. Town of Windham v. Freedom of Information CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API