Legal Opinion

Shadhali, Inc. v. Hintlian

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided April 30, 1996No. 14360PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLavery, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage brought by the plaintiff who is the assignee of a promissory note executed by the defendants. The defendants, Sirvart K. Hintlian and John Hintlian, appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) relied solely on hearsay evidence concerning the amount of the debt, (2) found that the plaintiff had accelerated the note, (3) allowed late charges for a period after the note was accelerated, in calculating the amount of the debt, and (4) admitted an…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. SharpeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  2. River Dock & Pile, Inc. v. O & G Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  3. Federal Deposit Insurance v. Napert-Boyer PartnershipConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  4. State v. ScottConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
  5. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. ReckertConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. SwintonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
  2. State v. BarnettConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
  3. SKW Real Estate Ltd. Partnership v. GallicchioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  4. Michael Rizzo and Louise Rizzo v. Pierce & AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
  5. Berkeley Federal Bank & Trust, FSB v. OgalinConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API