Legal Opinion
A & M Realty v. Dahms
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 8, 1991No. 13878; 13879PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCovello, J.
This is a suit on a promissory- note. The dispositive issues are: (1) whether the trial court correctly applied the equitable doctrine of appropriation in determining the sums due on the note; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in the *97value it assigned to certain real property that had been the subject of a prior foreclosure action. We conclude that: (1) there is mathematical error in the application of the appropriation doctrine; and (2) the value assigned to the real property is within the broad discretion reposing in the trial court in such instances. We therefore order…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ceco Corp. v. ColemanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- First Bank v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- New Haven Savings Bank v. West Haven Sound DevelopmentSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Bennett v. New Haven Redevelopment AgencySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Bomeisler v. . ForsterNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sanders v. DiasConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- American Mortgage Corp. v. HopeConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Dept. of Transportation v. Cheriha, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015
- Freedom Green v. Mountain Ridge, No. 0103969 (Jun. 28, 1993)Connecticut Superior Court · 1993
- New England Savings Bank v. LopezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.