Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Munsill-Borden Mansion, LLC
147 Conn. App. 30
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Munsill-Borden executed a $400,000 mortgage in 2005 to CT Bank & Trust to secure the loan.
- In 2007, Munsill-Borden executed a second mortgage and a $100,000 note to Kriedel, Brouillard signing as guarantor.
- Foreclosure action against Munsill-Borden in 2009 named Kriedel and Brouillard; cross-claim sought payment on the subordinate note and personal liability for Brouillard.
- Trial focused on whether Brouillard was personally liable; parol evidence objections were sustained, with defendants seeking extrinsic background.
- Trial court concluded Brouillard personally liable; defendants appealed claiming improper parol-evidence exclusion and improper UCC application; issues were argued but preservation concerns arose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parol evidence preservation and admissibility | Parol evidence claims not preserved; evidence excluded under parol rule; no proper exception raised. | Excluded extrinsic evidence should be admissible to show ambiguity, collateral agreement, or fraud. | Claim unpreserved; not reviewable. |
| UCC provisions applied on appeal | No cognizable UCC issue preserved; court did not rule on UCC provisions. | UCC was improperly applied. | No preserved UCC claim; unreviewed. |
| Standing of appellants Cheng and Ravenwood | Cheng and Ravenwood lack standing to appeal. | They have aggrieved status. | Cheng and Ravenwood lack standing; appeals dismissed for want of aggrievement. |
| Postjudgment motions and preservation of parol evidence claim | Motions did not distinctly raise a parol-evidence exception or preserve the issue. | Motions preserved parol-evidence arguments. | Postjudgment motions did not preserve the parol-evidence claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonetti v. MacDermid, Inc., 310 Conn. 195 (2013) (parol evidence exceptions and contract interpretation)
- State v. Simpson, 286 Conn. 634 (2008) (review standards for preserved claims; trial-to-appellate review)
- Baker v. Cordisco, 37 Conn. App. 515 (1995) (preservation and ground of objections in appellate review)
- State v. Misenti, 112 Conn. App. 562 (2009) (standing; aggrievement and review limits)