Date: 08-07-2001

Case Style: George A. Thompson v. David Orcutt, et al.

Case Number: 16398

Judge: Katz

Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Plaintiff's Attorney: Clifton E. Thompson, Hartford, Connecticut

Defendant's Attorney: Bruce S. Beck, Manchestert, Connecticut

Description: The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the doctrine of clean hands 1 did not apply in this mortgage foreclosure action. The defendants, David Orcutt and Sandra Orcutt,2 appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, reversing the judgment of the trial court, which had applied the clean hands doctrine to preclude the plaintiff, George A. Thompson,3 from foreclosing on the mortgage on their property. The defendants claim that the Appellate Court improperly determined that the clean hands doctrine did not apply. We agree with the defendants and reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The opinion of the Appellate Court summarizes the following facts and procedural history. ‘‘The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to fore-close on a mortgage that secured a note, the original balance of which was $25,000. The note was signed by the defendant David Orcutt as president of Alpha Equipment Sales and Rentals, Inc., and by the defen-dants individually and severally.4 The note was secured by a mortgage (Thompson mortgage) on property owned by the defendants known as 95 Greenwood Drive in Manchester, which mortgage was the subject of the foreclosure action. Although the plaintiff claimed that he was the trustee of that mortgage for himself and Jack L. Rosenblit, a business associate, no written trust agreement existed. [See footnote 3 of this opinion.]

‘‘The mortgaged premises were subject to three encumbrances superior to the Thompson mortgage: A first mortgage to the New Haven Savings Bank in the amount of $60,000, a second mortgage in favor of the Connecticut Bank and Trust Company in the amount of $35,000 and a lien in favor of Northeast Financial Services (Northeast) [in the amount of $32,712]. The principals of Northeast were the plaintiff and Rosenblit, and [although] the debt securing the mortgage to North-east [had been] paid prior to the creation of the Thomp-son mortgage, [the lien] had not been released.

‘‘In January, 1992, the plaintiff filed a voluntary peti-tion in [chapter 7] bankruptcy in the United States Bank-ruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, listing as an asset a one-half interest in the Thompson mortgage. The bankruptcy court appointed [a bankruptcy trustee to administer the bankruptcy] estate.’’ Thompson v. Orcutt, 59 Conn. App. 201, 202–203, 756 A.2d 332 (2000).5

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for consideration of the plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Reported by Kent Morlan