8 Conn. App. 512 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1986
This appeal presents the sole issue of whether a certified copy of a judgment, which is later recorded on the land records of the town where the affected real estate is situated, is sufficient to constitute the recording of a certificate of judgment lien pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1983) § 49-44.
The facts are not in dispute. On June 24, 1981, a notice of lis pendens was recorded by the plaintiff on the land records of the town of New Milford against real property then owned by Geneva E. Kalivas, but formerly in the ownership of George N. Kalivas. The notice of lis pendens informed of the pendency of an
The defendant Demosthenes Kalivas, the record owner of the property, moved in the trial court for a summary judgment in the foreclosure action for failure of the plaintiff to record a certificate of judgment lien on the land records. The motion was granted and summary judgment was rendered by the court. In its
The certificate of judgment lien required to be recorded by § 49-44 must be “substantially” in the form of the certificate exemplified in that section.
The copy of the judgment file signed and certified by the court clerk which the plaintiff recorded on the land records in this case does not substantially comply with the form and informational requirements of § 49-44 and was not signed by the judgment creditor, his attorney or personal representative, parties who would be presumed to know the specific and updated debt information called for by the statute for a proper certificate of judgment lien. The judgment file recorded by the plaintiff by necessity contains only the data of the judgment as of the date of its rendition. It is a copy of the court record of judgment, and not a copy of the business record of the judgment creditor containing the statutory information necessary for a valid certificate of judgment lien, and lacks the authenticating signature required by the statute.
Under the circumstances of this case, the court was correct in concluding that a certified copy of the judgment file recorded on the land records did not satisfy the requirements of General Statutes (Rev. to 1983) § 49-44 and in rendering summary judgment for the property owner.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
General Statutes (Rev. to 1983) § 49-44 has since been repealed and replaced by General Statutes § 52-380a. Public Acts 1983, No. 83-581, §§ 14, 39, 40.
General Statutes (Rev. to 1983) § 49-44 provided in relevant part: “Any suitor having an unsatisfied judgment . . . may cause to be recorded, in the town clerk’s office in the town where the land lies, a certificate signed by the judgment creditor, his attorney or personal representative, substantially in the form following:
“This is to certify that A.B., of ....... on the . . . day of ... , 19 . . , in the . . . court holden at . . . , in the judicial district of ... , (or in the United States . . . court) did obtain a judgment in his favor, against C.D., of ...... . for the sum of . . . dollars damages, and . . . dollars costs of suit, which judgment remains wholly unsatisfied (or, on which judgment the sum of . . . dollars is still due); and to secure said sums, and the lawful interest thereon, a judgment lien in favor of said A.B. is hereby placed upon the following-described real estate of the said C.D., situate in the town of ... , judicial district of . . . , to wit: (description); pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided. Dated at . . . this . . . day of . . ., 19 . . .
[signed] A.B.”