Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Gordon v. Tufano

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided September 28, 1982Published

1ConcurrenceArthur H. Healey, J.

I concur in the result reached by the majority but not in the route used to attain it. General Statutes § 49-13 is a statute that gives only a narrow and limited jurisdiction. See Simonelli v. Fitzgerald, 156 Conn. 49, 53-54, 238 A.2d 418 (1968). “The statute [§ 49-13] gives the court no jurisdiction to determine the validity or invalidity of a disputed mortgage of long standing.” (Emphasis added.) Simonelli v. Fitzgerald, supra, 54. The purpose of such a statute “is to provide a simple method whereby a mortgage, the invalidity of which is undisputed, may be declared invalid by the court and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Simonelli v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
  2. Kaufman v. SamuelsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API