Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Citation
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-01-07
Other Sections in This Document (15)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
Full Text
747 charsLAVERY, C. J. In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants, Airport Industrial Limited Partnership, Michael R. Levin and John B. D’Agostino, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the motion of the plaintiff, Beal Bank, S.S.B., for a supplemental judgment ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff certain security deposits. The dispositive issue is whether a mortgage foreclosure action is the proper proceeding to determine the respective rights of the foreclosing mortgagee and the mortgagor with respect to commercial tenant security deposits where the tenants have not been made parties to the proceeding. We conclude that it is not and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.