Legal Opinion
Suffield Bank v. Berman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 22, 1994No. 14779PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKatz, J.
The defendants William W. Berman, James J. Luzzi and Thomas E. Kohanski appeal from the judgments for deficiency after strict foreclosure had been entered against them.1 The defendants argue that the trial court’s judgments must be reversed because the trial court improperly: (1) refused, at the hearing on the motions for deficiency judgment, to allow them to challenge, on a mitigation of damages theory, the accrual of interest on the affidavit of debt; (2) concluded that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (for purposes of this opinion, referred to as the plaintiff), as receiver of the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Messenger v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,654 William L. Gunter and Camille S. Gunter v. Theodore M. HutchesonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Breen v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- City of Waterbury v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Hatt v. Burlington Coat FactorySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Higgins v. KarpSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. SpirerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- State v. MontiniConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.