Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn. App. 175 (2024)

ing a $4,940,000 note and a mortgage in favor of Baotou’s
       predecessor in interest, Patriot Bank, N.A. (Patriot
       Bank).5 Pursuant to the terms of the mortgage, in addi-
       tion to a security interest in the property, the plaintiff
       granted to Patriot Bank the plaintiff’s rights to ‘‘[a]ll of
       the rents, receipts, revenues, income, issues thereof
       and profits now due or which may become due or to
       which [the plaintiff] may now or hereafter shall become
       entitled . . . or may demand or claim, arising or issu-
       ing from or out of any and all using, leasing, licensing,
       possessing, operating from, residing in, selling or other-
       wise enjoying the [m]ortgaged [p]roperty or any part
       thereof . . . .’’ In addition to the note and mortgage,
       the plaintiff also executed a separate assignment of
          4
            At the hearing on the motion to intervene, the defendants’ attorney
       provided the court with the following undisputed background information
       regarding the plaintiff’s purchase of the property and the relationships
       between the various parties. ‘‘[T]he [plaintiff’s] principal . . . is a gentleman
       named Vladimir Guzinsky. He is the sole owner of [the plaintiff]. [The
       plaintiff] was formed solely for the purchase of [the property]. [Guzinsky]
       was, at one time, the best friend of [the defendant] Vladimir Lenskiy . . . .
       They and their wives and their children vacationed together, spent a signifi-
       cant amount of time together. In 2002, [Vladimir Lenskiy] purchased the
       [property]. In 2005 . . . he tore down the former home and finished the
       construction on the house that stands on the property since that time . . . .
       He and his wife raised their children in that home, the children grew up,
       and he continues to reside in that home ever since 2005. In 2012, [Vladimir
       Lenskiy] ran into some financial trouble with the bank that then had the
       mortgage on the construction loan. And there was a period of years where
       they were negotiating but eventually that bank started a foreclosure action
       against [him]. [Vladimir Lenskiy] negotiated with that bank to give him
       permission to sell the property at a short sale to [the plaintiff]. . . . [Guzin-
       sky] formed [the plaintiff] to save his friend from the foreclosure action
       and bought it at a short sale . . . in June of 2017, for $3.8 million. Two
       months later, he financed the property with Patriot Bank . . . .’’ Guzinsky
       allowed the defendants to retain possession of the property, and, although
       Guzinsky ‘‘created a lease . . . between himself and [Vladimir Lenskiy]
       . . . [Vladimir Lenskiy] had never paid [Guzinsky] rent.’’
          5
            The terms of the original note and mortgage were subsequently amended.
       All references to the note and mortgage in this opinion are to the operative
       amended loan documents.
Page 4                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0