Legal Opinion
Crepeau v. Gronager
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 7, 1996No. 13027PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDupont, C. J.
The defendant Holmer P. Gronager appeals from the trial court’s judgment, which was based on factual findings made by an attorney trial referee. The issue raised by Gronager is whether the trial court should have based its judgment on the attorney trial referee’s finding that Gronager fraudulently *304conveyed property to the defendant Katherine Gotch1 in order to hinder the plaintiffs’ ability to collect a debt due them by Gronager. The plaintiffs2 cross appealed from the trial court’s refusal to render judgment against Gotch for damages.
The plaintiffs’ four count complaint against the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Alaimo v. RoyerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Gaudio v. GaudioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Nor'easter Group, Inc. v. Colossale Concrete, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Molitor v. MolitorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Tessitore v. TessitoreConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. HowellConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Shawmut Bank v. Brooks Development Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- State v. OwensConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Connecticut Savings Bank v. ObenaufConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Remington Investments, Inc. v. Ronald S. Obenauf and Ardeth ObenaufCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.