Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** ROGER SAUNDERS ET AL. v. ELLI STIGERS ET AL. (AC 20408)
Foti, Mihalakos and O'Connell, Js. Argued December 14, 2000--officially released March 6, 2001 Counsel

Joseph A. Kubic, with whom, on the brief, was James R. Winkel, for the appellant (named defendant). David Eric Ross, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

FOTI, J. The defendant Elli Stigers1 appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure, rendered by the trial court on December 20, 1999. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) rendered judgment, (2) granted the plaintiffs'2 motion to strike the defendant's third special defense, (3) admitted evidence of the amount of the debt, and (4) found adequate notice of default and acceleration of the debt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On March 28, 1994, the mortgage and note that are the subject of this foreclosure action were

assigned to the plaintiffs. The subject property is known as 393 Timberlane Drive in Orange. On May 24, 1996, the plaintiffs filed an action to foreclose the mortgage. They alleged that the defendant had failed to pay real estate taxes due on the property as required under the terms of the note, thereby causing the plaintiffs to declare the balance due and payable. The defendant in her answer admitted that she was the maker of the note and mortgage, and asserted three special defenses, which alleged that the plaintiffs had breached the terms of the mortgage by applying payments toward interest only, that the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in their efforts to seek repayment and that the plaintiffs modified the terms of the note by advising the defendant to stop making tax escrow payments. The defendant also filed a counterclaim alleging (1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.

Download Saunders v. Stigers.pdf

Connecticut Law