Iris S. Lynn v. Roderick A. Lynn (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The court held a hearing on December 12, 2011, February 14, 2012 and April 2, 2012, pursuant to direction from the Appellate Court, to determine whether the defendant owes the plaintiff funds, and if so how much.  Lynn v. Lynn, 130 Conn.App. 319, 330, 23 A.3d 771(2011).   The court carefully reviewed the memorandum of decision by Judge Prestley dated February 20, 2008 and the evidence and testimony that was presented to it by the parties.   The court considered the claims of the defendant that the plaintiff retained the income from the second apartment and failed to pay the mortgage which caused it to go into foreclosure and lessened the proceeds of the sale.   The court also considered claims that the plaintiff conspired with an earlier prospective purchaser of the property, causing delay and that sale to fall apart.   The court carefully considered all of the defendants claims raised during the hearing and thoroughly reviewed his trial brief.

The Appellate Court indicated that Judge Prestley took into account the facts she recited in her decision in making her orders.   This included the fact that the plaintiff collected rental income and was paying the mortgage and took the mortgage deductions on her tax return.   The defendant claims that this factual finding made the plaintiff bound to make the mortgage payments, despite the fact there is no order by Judge Prestley to make these payments.   In addition to the sale of the property, the orders by Judge Prestley dealt with alimony, personal property division and debt allocation.   This court has no way of knowing how Judge Prestley took into consideration the facts recited and specifically which orders were affected by particular facts.   Accordingly, this court cannot find that the memorandum of decision dated February 20, 2008 obligated the plaintiff to pay the mortgage on the property postjudgment.

The court cannot find that the plaintiff was complicit with anyone in delaying the sale of the property to a Mr. Hernandez.   This contract for sale did not close because the buyer backed out.   Litigation is pending between the defendant and Mr. Hernandez.   The defendant also claims that he is due a credit for monies expended by his brother in making repairs to the property resulting from a court mediated settlement in December 2008, trying to close the Hernandez deal.   In fact that closing never occurred and no credit is due.

The court has considered each and every claim made by the defendant and finds them to be without merit.

By the clear language of the judgment, the payment of the mortgage debts to his brother and father were the defendant's responsibility.   This court finds that the plaintiff would have received $28,996.81 had the mortgage to Jack Lynn not been paid from the closing.  (Exhibit 3.) Pursuant to the testimony at the hearing, the plaintiff actually received $31,496.81.   This is a combination of the money she received from the closing and the money paid pursuant to Judge Dolan's order including $2,500 in attorney fees.   Therefore the defendant overpaid the plaintiff the sum of $2,500.

Pinkus, J.

Pinkus, Barry C., J.