Legal Opinion
Chase Manhattan Bank v. CDC Financial Corp.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 7, 1999No. AC 18031PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*706 Opinion
SPEAR, J.
The plaintiff, Chase Manhattan Bank, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant guarantors on the basis of their statute of limitations defense.1 The plaintiff claims that the summary judgment was improper (1) because an interest payment made on January 3, 1991, restarted the running of the six year statute of limitations period as to the guarantors of the note and, alternatively, (2) because of the existence of a material fact in dispute, namely, whether the payment was made on behalf of the guarantors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Home Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Nolan v. BorkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v. Campcore, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Park Associates v. Crescent Park Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Clute v. . CluteNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mott v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LPConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Nieves v. CirmoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Kroll v. SebastianConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. CDC Financial Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Egan v. Fiore, No. Cv 98 0165383 S (Nov. 15, 1999)Connecticut Superior Court · 1999