Customer's Bank v. CB (2013)

MEMORANDUM RE MOTION FOR ORDER (# 156)

The defendants, CB Associates and Wesley Blakeman, have filed a Motion for Order pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 6–5.  Section 6–5 Notation of Satisfaction provides “When the judgment is satisfied in a civil action, the party recovering the judgment shall file written notice thereof with the Clerk, who shall endorse judgment on the judgment file ․ The judicial authority may, upon motion, make a determination that the judgment has been satisfied.”

The defendants claim on argument that the judgment herein was satisfied by the plaintiff, Customer's Bank, by taking title to certain condominium units in a related foreclosure action,¹ River Ridge of Shelton Condominium Association v. CB Associates, Inc. et al. (hereinafter River Ridge ).

The plaintiff claims on argument that although it took title to those certain condominiums, that full satisfaction did not occur because of 3 out of 5 condominiums sold for less than the amount of the judgment herein and therefore the judgment herein is only partially satisfied.

The terms of the agreement underlying the judgment in this case is determinative of this instant motion.

Attorney Alena Gfeller, representing the plaintiff, Customer's Bank recited as follows:

Your Honor, we have an agreement we would like to place on the record.   The parties have agreed that judgment shall enter in favor of the bank on all counts of the Complaint with a judgment to enter in the amount of $1,475,000, that amount include all fees and costs ․

All parties further agree that they will not contest a condominium association foreclosure, which is pending on the docket at DBD, CV13–6011315, which relates to the property to which the bank has a mortgage.

However, all parties to the case agree that they will reserve their right to contest valuation of the individual condominium units at the time of the entry of judgment in that foreclosure action.   That is the full and completed settlement as I understand it.

Attorney Dominick Thomas, representing the defendants further reiterated as follows:

And, because the—of the bank were to be the one to get title to the five units, that is what is being foreclosed, then that would be a credit against this judgment.   So, we each are reserving the right to challenge the value at that time, Your Honor.

Later, a hearing of strict foreclosure was held by the court on February 1, 2013 in the River Ridge case wherein the parties agreed to valuation on 4 of the 5 condominium units and the court after a contested hearing found a value for the 5th condominium unit.   The court found the total value of condominium units that were foreclosed to be $1,600,000.00.

Further at said hearing, a Mr. White, who authoritatively represented the plaintiff, upon inquiry by the court asserted that, he heard and understood the agreement spread on the record by Attorney Gfeller and further that he did not have any question of the court.

Customer's Bank later sold 3 condominium units for the total sum of $500,000.00 (proceeds of sale).

The only plausible and logical interpretation of the parties' agreement is that Customer's Bank taking title to the 5 condominium units satisfied the judgment.   Admittedly this is not the typical satisfaction in cash but it is equivalent thereto.

This court also notes that the aforementioned elucidation by Attorney Thomas specifically mentions “TITLE ” to the five units ․ would be a credit against the judgment.

Query? Why reserve the right to contest the valuation of the condominium units, if something else such as the subsequent proceeds of sale were to be used to satisfy the judgment herein.   This is patently illogical and contrary to common sense.

Therefore, the court orders the plaintiff Customer's Bank to comply with Connecticut Practice Book § 6–5 and provide a written notice of satisfaction with the clerk, forthwith.

Respectfully submitted

JOHN W. MORAN, J.T.R.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. These condominium units are the same condominium units that provided security for the promissory note in this action, but the plaintiff elected to sue on its promissory and did not proceed to foreclose on its security..  FN1. These condominium units are the same condominium units that provided security for the promissory note in this action, but the plaintiff elected to sue on its promissory and did not proceed to foreclose on its security.

Moran, John W., J.T.R.