Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; March 28, 1989; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to discharge a notice of lis pendens, asserting that the court erred in its decision. The case involves a property acquired by the plaintiffs, Larry and Beverly Zak, in 1984 with a mortgage from Thomaston Savings Bank. Following foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiffs sought $22,000 from the defendant, leading to a December 1986 closing where the plaintiffs, unrepresented by counsel, executed a quit claim deed transferring property title to the defendant and entered into a lease agreement with an option to purchase. After the plaintiffs defaulted on lease payments, the defendant initiated eviction proceedings. A stipulated judgment required the plaintiffs to make weekly payments, but their two attempts were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Connecticut Truth-In-Lending Act, federal consumer protection laws, fraud, duress, and unfair trade practices, accompanied by a notice of lis pendens. The defendant's motion to discharge the lis pendens was denied after a hearing where conflicting testimonies were presented regarding the nature of the transaction. Under General Statutes 52-325b (a), the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate probable cause to sustain their claims, which the court assessed without making a final decision on the merits. The appellate court emphasizes its limited role in reviewing the trial court's factual findings and credibility assessments, affirming the denial in the absence of clear error.
In Babiarz v. Hartford, the appellate court emphasizes its limited role in reviewing the trial court's conclusions, stating that it does not reweigh evidence but assesses whether the trial court's conclusions are reasonable based on the record. If the trial court's legal conclusions have a reasonable basis, they should be upheld, even if a full review might suggest a different outcome. However, in this case, the appellate court cannot conduct a limited review because the trial court did not provide a memorandum of decision, and the defendant did not request clarification from the trial court. Without these records, the appellate court cannot evaluate the reasonableness of the trial court's conclusions, and the appellant is responsible for providing an adequate appellate record. Consequently, the court finds no error in the trial court's ruling. Additionally, General Statutes § 52-325c(a) states that certain orders are deemed final judgments for appeal purposes, while § 52-325b outlines the burden of proof for the plaintiff in establishing probable cause for their claim, allowing the court to either deny the application if probable cause is shown or discharge a notice if it is not.
