25 VAN ZANT STREET CONDOMINIUM, INC. v. CALVARY CHAPEL OF NORWALK, INC.

2010 Ct. Sup. 17932, 50 CLR 589
No. FST CV 07 5004073 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
September 13, 2010

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR CORRECTION AND/OR ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF DECISION (#147.00)
EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR., JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

The court grants the motion in that it allows argument. The relief sought therein is denied. The court has ruled clearly concerning the unpaid antennae fees in its Memorandum of Decision. The court has ruled clearly on the fines for a lack of Certificate of Occupancy, and stands by its original decision and reasons set forth therein.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ARTICULATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION (#146.00)
The court grants the Motion for Articulation and/or Clarification. A complete reading of the court’s decision makes it clear that the court’s decision also covers Count Two, the Contract Count. The court’s decision adequately addresses the issues in Count Two, the same damages apply to both counts as set forth in the decision.

Accordingly, the court clarifies its decision by entering judgments on Count One and Count Two.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CORRECTION AND/OR ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF DECISION (#151.00)
The court has reviewed the motion and sustains the objection for all the reasons set forth in the Decision on Motion #148.00.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT CALVARY CHAPEL OF NORWALK, INC.’S MOTION TO REARGUE (#148.00)
CT Page 17933

The Motion to Reargue is granted in that reargument is allowed. The court has reviewed its decision in light of the arguments made concerning the unpaid common charges and the attorneys fees, and stands by the decision and reasoning of its original decision. The court finds the $16,000.00 in attorneys fees to be fair and reasonable. The court finds the unpaid common charges of $46,005.78 to be the amount due.

The defendant claims there is a two-year statute of limitations on the claim. The defendant has referred to Connecticut General Statutes § 47-258e. The defendant claims this is a statute of limitations prohibiting collection of any amounts due prior to 2005. This section addresses “liens.” Paragraph e says that the lien is extinguished unless proceedings to enforce the lien are instituted within two years after the full payment of the assessments becomes due. Paragraph f of that section indicates that this section concerning liens does not prohibit actions to recover sums for which subsection a of this section creates a lien. Accordingly, in this case there was a lien for the period of time from 2005 to the date of the decision, but other amounts that were not the subject of the lien were due.

Accordingly, there is no statute of limitations for the collection, but rather only a period of time in which the lien must be foreclosed. Accordingly, the court stands by its ruling since the complaint sounded in two counts, the first being foreclosure and the second, contract. The judgment and the order stands since there is no prohibition for suing for the amount due prior to 2005.

SO ORDERED.

CT Page 17934