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. ****************************************************** PETER STANDISH ET AL. v. SOTAVENTO CORPORATION ET AL. (AC 18677)
Foti, Hennessy and Daly, Js. Argued February 23--officially released July 18, 2000

Bernard Green, with whom, on the brief, was Marni Smith Katz, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Edward V. O'Hanlan, with whom, on the brief, was John P. McKinney, for the appellee (named defendant).
Opinion

HENNESSY, J. The plaintiffs1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of a motion for summary judgment filed by the named defendant, Sotavento Corporation (Sotavento), a licensed Connecticut brokerage.2 On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts were before the court. The plaintiffs, limited partners of the defendant Morningside Partners Limited Partnership (Morningside), commenced this derivative action in two counts against

Sotavento,3 Morningside and the defendant Charles Lemieux, the general partner of Morningside, seeking to invalidate a promissory note and mortgage executed in favor of Sotavento on certain property owned by Morningside. The note and mortgage were executed on October 26, 1995. The complaint alleged that Lemieux, while purportedly acting as the general partner of Morningside and on behalf of all of its partners, signed a revolving credit agreement with Sotavento and executed a note in favor of Sotavento in the amount of $150,000. The note was secured by a mortgage on property owned by Morningside.4 According to the complaint, Lemieux acted without authority in making the note and mortgage. The complaint also alleged that the note and mortgage were executed for uses and purposes that were not in the interests of Morningside or in furtherance of its business and that they were executed by Lemieux for his own benefit. The complaint further alleged that Sotavento was or should have been aware of Lemieux's intent.5 Sotavento filed a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs, claiming that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether Lemieux was authorized to execute the note and enter into the credit agreement on behalf of Morningside, and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted Sotavento's motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed. ``Our standard of review of a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment is well established. Practice Book

Download Standish v. Sotavento Corp..pdf

Connecticut Law