Cent. Bank v. Heggelund, 584 A.2d 471 (Conn. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Cent. Bank v. Heggelund, 584 A.2d 471 (Conn. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
83 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc. (conn, 2009-07-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc.
Conn. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287, 297 , 580 A.2d 1212 (concluding on basis of equitable principles that count of subsequent action improperly dismissed despite fact that allegations in that count virtually identical to allegations in prior pending action), cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990); Quinebaug Bank v. Tarbox, 20 Conn. 510, 514 (1850) (general rule does not prevail where it appears second action is not vexatious, but is brought for good cause); see also BCBS Goshen Realty, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 22 Conn. App. 407, 409 , 577 A.2d 1101 (1990) (flexibil…
discussed Cited "see" Collard and Roe, PC v. Klein
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 *347 Conn. App. 287, 301-302, 580 A.2d 1212 (whether fraudulent conveyance action is an equitable action depends to great extent on whether plaintiff is seeking damages or the setting aside of the conveyance), cert, denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990); General Statutes § 52-484 (“[w]henever any person has, or is alleged to have, any money or other property in his possession which is claimed by two or more persons, either he, or any of the persons claiming the same, may bring a complaint in equity, in the nature of a bill of interpleader”) (Emphasis added.)…
cited Cited "see" In re Jessica M.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287, 294 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
cited Cited "see" Zewinski v. Volpe, No. Cv-98-0488391 S (Jun. 4, 2001)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gaudio v. Gaudio , 23 Conn. App. 287 , 305-306 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
discussed Cited "see" Zemina v. Petrol Plus, Inc., No. Cvnh 9712-8590 (Mar. 3, 1998)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
Rather, we balance considerations of public policy, common sense, and the chronology and geography of the relevant factors." Zartolas v. Nisenfeld, supra , 184 Conn. 477 ; see Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287 , 298 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
cited Cited "see" Connecticut National Bank v. L & R Realty
Conn. App. Ct. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287, 294-97 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
discussed Cited "see" The Winfield Lane Assn. v. New Canaan, No. Cv96 0150884 S (Apr. 26, 1996)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gemmell v. New Haven, 32 Conn. App. 280 , 630 A.2d 1331 (1993). "[A] motion to dismiss is the proper vehicle to raise the issue of a prior pending action." (Internal citations omitted.) Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287 , 294 , 580 A.2d 1212 (1990), cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Toro Credit Co. v. Zeytoonjian
Conn. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See New England Savings Bank v. Lopez, supra, 227 Conn. 277–82; see id., 280 (stating that ‘‘usual notion of fair market value is inconsistent with the notion of a foreclosure sale’’ in part because seller is ‘‘required to take the highest bid, subject only to the approval of the court’’); see also Central Bank for Savings v. Heggelund, 23 Conn. App. 266, 270 , 579 A.2d 598 (‘‘[i]f the court wanted to protect [the defen- dant] from a future deficiency liability, it had the equita- ble power at the hearing on the bank’s motion for approval of the sale to disapprove the s…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robinson v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See General Statutes § 52-108 (“[a]n action shall not be defeated by the nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties”); see also Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287, 305 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990) (nonjoinder of necessary or indispensable party does not implicate jurisdiction of court).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Whalley Glass Co. v. Nielson Company, No. Cv00 0176028 S (May 18, 2001)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Rather, we balance considerations of public policy, common sense, and the chronology and geography of the relevant factors." Zartolas v. Nisenfeld , supra, 184 Conn. 477 ; see also Gaudio v. Gaudio , 23 Conn. App. 287 , 298 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rjm Group v. Am. Assn. of Franchises Dealers, No. 32 95 48 (Mar. 19, 1998)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287 , 298 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Town of Groton, No. 529192 (Dec. 9, 1996)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although "the prior pending action rule does not truly implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the court . . . the motion to dismiss [is] the proper device by which to request that the trial court dismiss the second action." (Citations omitted.) Id., 652 n. 4; see also Gaudio v. Gaudio , 23 Conn. App. 287 , 294-95 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Crepeau v. Gronager
Conn. App. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
Finance Corp. of New England, Inc. v. Scard, supra, 100 Conn. 717 -18; Nowsky v. Siedlecki, supra, 83 Conn. 112 ; see also Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287, 302 , 580 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 217 Conn. 803 , 584 A.2d 471 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Central Bank
v.
Joseph S. Heggelund
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 20, 1990.
584 A.2d 471
Henry D. Marcus, in support of the petition.
Published

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 23 Conn. App. 266, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the foreclosing plaintiff entitled to a deficiency judgment based upon the price it bid at the foreclosure sale when that price was substantially below the appraised value of the property as found by the trial court and the appraisers appointed by the court?

“2. Is the defendant, who contested the confirmation of the sale, barred from raising the issue of whether the sale should have been confirmed in his appeal from the deficiency judgment?

“3. Should the court have applied the equitable doctrine of appropriation in determining the amount of the deficiency judgment and used the fair market value of the property rather than its sale price in its calculation of the deficiency?”