Legal Opinion
City Sav. Bk of Bridgeport v. Miko
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 7, 1983No. (2464)PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHull, J.
The defendants appeal from the court’s determination that they are liable for attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff in connection with a motion for deficiency judgment after foreclosure. They also challenge a ruling excluding certain evidence pertaining to prior encumbrances, and a finding that their attorney was acting as an escrow agent for the plaintiff. The plaintiff has cross appealed, challenging the court's ruling denying the plaintiff attorney’s fees for potential legal work incurred in the collection of the deficiency judgment.
The plaintiff initiated strict foreclosure…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Appliances, Inc. v. YostSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Ferguson v. SaboSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Glotzer v. KeyesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. SladeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- Folwell v. HowellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Eichman v. J & J Building Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Smith v. SnyderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Maresca v. DeMatteoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986
- Matter of SalisburyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 1985
- Shapero v. MercedeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.