Legal Opinion

Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Muranelli

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided November 28, 1995No. 14269PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHennessy, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a trial court may order a party foreclosing a mortgage on a condominium unit to make payments in lieu of common charges during the pendency of the foreclosure action. We hold that such an order is inconsistent with General Statutes § 47-2581 and, therefore, reverse the order of the trial court.

*738This appeal arises from Dime Savings Bank’s foreclosure of a mortgage on a condominium unit. Dime Savings Bank commenced the action in 1992, but later moved to substitute FGB Realty Advisors (FGB) as the plaintiff because FGB had purchased the subject note…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hudson House Condominium Ass'n v. BrooksSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Twin Towers Condo. Assn. v. Bel Fury Invest. GroupNebraska Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Dime Savings Bank of New York v. MuranelliSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  3. Palms & Sands Owners Assn. v. Bank of America CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Palms & Sands Owners Assn. v. Bank of America CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API