Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)

Citation: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Parent Document: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244827/scholz-v-epstein/ ↗

Full Text

2,333 chars

pending, and purposefully deprived him of the opportu-
         nity to redeem the property from the foreclosure or
         otherwise to act to protect his ownership interest in
         the property.’’
            After the running of the law days and Benchmark’s
         taking title to the property, the defendant drafted a
         certificate of foreclosure but did not record the certifi-
         cate of foreclosure in the Bridgeport land records until
         approximately six months after title had vested in
         Benchmark. This delay, the plaintiff alleged, resulted
         in the town’s issuing of the real property tax bill to him,
         not Benchmark, depriving him of an opportunity to
         learn of the property’s sale. Benchmark then sold the
         property to a third party for approximately three times
         the fair market price listed in the appraisal report.
            As a result of this conduct, the plaintiff alleged that
         ‘‘[he] was unaware . . . that the tax lien foreclosure
         action had even been commenced, let alone that it had
         gone to judgment, that the law days had run, that Bench-
         mark had taken title to the property by strict foreclosure
         and that Benchmark had sold the property to third
         parties for a windfall profit . . . .’’ When the plaintiff
         discovered that the property had been sold, he bought
         back the property because he operated a business on
         both the property at 405 Helen Street and the Stillman
         property and feared his business and livelihood might
         be destroyed by the loss of the Stillman property.
         Accordingly, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant
         ‘‘wrongfully engaged in the conduct alleged . . . with
         the intent to deprive [him] of his property and/or to
         appropriate the property to Benchmark, thereby com-
         mitting [statutory] theft in violation of [General Stat-
         utes] § 52-564, and causing [him] great financial loss.’’
           The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s action
         for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He argued that,
         because all of the alleged conduct occurred during the
Page 38                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL               January 25, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text