Varick Memorial v. James Haley et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 125) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 129)

The plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action in September 2007.   The plaintiff is a church which owns property known as 240, 246 and 250 Dixwell Avenue in New Haven, Connecticut.   The church pastor in 2007 was Reverend David Lee. The defendants received a series of promissory notes and mortgages for said property executed by Rev. Lee.

The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment asserts that the notes and mortgages are valid and enforceable and that Rev. Lee had actual and apparent authority on behalf of the plaintiff church to execute them.

The plaintiff has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in its favor.   The plaintiff asserts that the notes and mortgages at issue were not authorized to be signed by Rev. Lee on behalf of the plaintiff.   The plaintiff asserts Rev. Lee perpetrated a fraud on the defendants.

The Legal Standard

“Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ․ The motion for summary judgment is designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried.”  (Citations omitted.)  Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279, 567 A.2d 829 (1989).  “[S]ummary judgment is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way ․ [A] summary disposition ․ should be on evidence which a jury would not be at the liberty to disbelieve and which would require a directed verdict for the moving party ․ [A] directed verdict may be rendered only where, on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, the trier of fact could not reasonable reach any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as directed.”   (Citations omitted;  emphasis in original;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Dugan v. Mobile Medical Testing Services, Inc., 265 Conn. 791, 815, 830 A.2d 752 (2003).

“The courts hold the movant to a strict standard.   To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact ․ As the burden of proof is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent ․ When documents submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment fail to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party has no obligation to submit documents establishing the existence of such an issue;  ․ Once the moving party has met its burden, however, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue ․ It is not enough ․ for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue.   Mere assertions of fact ․ are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Zielinski v. Kotsoris, 279 Conn. 312, 318–19, 901 A.2d 1207 (2006).   In the present case genuine issues of material fact exists as to whether or not Rev. Lee had the actual or apparent authority on behalf of the plaintiff to execute the notes and mortgages at issue.

For the above stated reasons both motions for summary judgment are hereby denied.

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

Fischer, Brian T., J.