Legal Opinion
Funaro v. Baisley
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 9, 2000No. AC 19134PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DALY, J.
The named defendant, Barbara Baisley,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting specific performance of an option to purchase real estate. The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) misconstrued General Statutes § 47-33a and (2) found that the plaintiff, Joan Funaro, was not required to perform fully the terms of the option agreement, specifically, the tender of a promissory note and mortgage deed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following factual situation does not appear to be in dispute. On August 25, 1975, the plaintiff purchased from her…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. GalloConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Sicaras v. City of HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Beloff v. Progressive Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Owens v. New Britain General HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. WebbConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Nash v. StevensConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- Washington Mutual Bank v. CoughlinConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
- Maloney v. Pcre, No. Cv 98 0168891 (Oct. 2, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000
- Nash v. StevensConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013