2005 Ct. Sup. 4139, 38 CLR 865
No. CV04-0526068SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain at New Britain
March 8, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
DUNNELL, JUDGE.
This is a written decision to reflect the oral ruling given to counsel from the bench.
This case is currently on appeal to the Appellate Court.
ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
The question before this court was whether the defendant in the original foreclosure action should reimburse the plaintiff for taxes advanced by the plaintiff. (Plaintiff had managed to secure a buyer for the property while the foreclosure was pending.) Defendant had not been given any figure for taxes at the closing. At the time of the court hearing, the new owners were already living in the house.
When the original judgment of foreclosure entered, the affidavit of debt submitted did not include a figure for any taxes paid on plaintiff’s behalf. In fact, taxes had been paid at that time. When defendant’s counsel requested a pay-off number for the closing, it was not given to him. Plaintiff had not given the statutory ten days to provide the figure at that point, but was made aware the closing was imminent. Plaintiff did not provide the figure within the statutory time which, by now, was after the sale.
The taxes in question were not included at the closing, as the information obtained from the assessor was that they had been CT Page 4140 paid.
The court was persuaded at the original argument that equity should not sanction a situation where a plaintiff will not give a payoff figure, particularly where a homeowner has been able to salvage a bad situation by selling his home on his own. Defendant was not on notice of taxes that had been paid before the affidavit of debt was accepted by the court, as taxes were not included on that document. In addition, at argument, the court accepted defendant’s counsel’s argument that Federal National Mortgage Assn. v. DiCioccio, 51 Conn.App. 343, 721 A.2d 569
(1998), was distinguishable on its facts because it concerned a sale rather than a strict foreclosure.
In attempting to articulate the decision, this court was compelled to the conclusion that Federal National Mortgage Assn. was not distinguishable, and stands for the proposition that windfalls are not favored in this context. Insofar as defendant would receive a windfall to the detriment of the plaintiff were he not held liable for the taxes, judgment must enter for the plaintiff.
This court should like to note that any suggestion at argument that any counsel had knowledge, or should have had knowledge, that the taxes were outstanding is rejected outright by this court. There is nothing on the record to support this claim.
ORDER
The previous finding by this court is hereby vacated, and plaintiff’s request to be reimbursed for the taxes advanced is granted.
Dunnell, J. CT Page 4141