Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-4 (2026)

Mortgages by U.S. government and certain credit associations and banks to secure future advancements

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any mortgage upon real property to secure future advancements of money to the mortgagor to be made within one year of the date of the mortgage by the United States or any department, agency or instrumentality thereof, a production credit association, a bank for cooperatives organized under the Farm Credit Act of 1933, a federal intermediate credit bank or a federal land bank is sufficiently definite and certain and valid to secure all money actually advanced under and in accordance with its provisions up to but not exceeding the amount of the full loan therein stated with the same priority as if it had been advanced at the time the mortgage was delivered, if the mortgage contains a description of the loan in substantially the following form:

“Whereas a loan to the mortgagor has been authorized by the mortgagee in the amount of $.... to be paid over to the mortgagor in installments from time to time at the discretion of the mortgagee, and whereas, the mortgagee herein agrees to complete disbursement of the proceeds of this loan on or before ...., or on said date to apply any balance of said loan not then disbursed to the principal of said loan in inverse order of maturity.”

(November, 1955, S. N221; 1959, P.A. 553; P.A. 79-602, S. 63.)

History: 1959 act applied provisions of section to mortgages by product credit associations, banks for cooperatives, federal intermediate credit banks and federal land banks; P.A. 79-602 substituted “is” for “shall be” and “the” for “such” where appearing.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Nor'easter Grp., Inc. v. Colossale Concrete, Inc., 542 A.2d 692 (Conn. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nor'easter Grp., Inc. v. Colossale Concrete, Inc., 542 A.2d 692 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 3× “On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in: (1) awarding damages to the plaintiff when it had found for the defendants “on the issue of per *472 formance by the plaintiff”; (2) finding for the plaintiff despite the fact that it did not comply with the notice…”

Saturn Constr. Co. v. Premier Roofing Co., 680 A.2d 1274 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 3× “12 Moreover, even if we were to conclude that the interpretation of § 49-4 la proffered by the plaintiff was well defined, explicit and clearly applicable, we could not conclude, pursuant to the Garrity test, that the arbitration panel appreciated but ignored it.”

Ernst Steel Corp. v. Reliance Ins., 536 A.2d 969 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, we find no error in the court’s application of General Statutes § 49-41a and its award of attorney’s fees and interest pursuant thereto.”

In re Jewelyette M. (Conn. 2025). “2d 540 (2018) (‘‘What [West Virginia case law] properly illustrates is that the right to be heard afforded under West Virginia Code § 49-4- 601 (h) exists and operates independently of the rights and privileges afforded to intervening parties.”

Steward Mach. Co., Inc. v. White Oak Corp., 462 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Conn. 2006). “The interest rate is the same under the contract as under section 49-4 la(b). Thus, whether the interest is understood to be contractual interest running until the execution of the settlement agreement or contractual interest until the notice of claim and, from that point,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.