Case Name: Max Suisman vs. Daniel Gorentz et als.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1916-06-27
Citations: 90 Conn. 618
Docket Number: 
Parties: Max Suisman vs. Daniel Gorentz et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 618–623

Head Matter:
Max Suisman vs. Daniel Gorentz et als.
First Judicial District, Hartford,
March Term, 1916.
Prentice, C. J., Thayer, Roraback, Wheeler and Beach, Js.
No valid deficiency-judgment can be rendered in a suit of foreclosure, when it appears from tbe record in the cause that the value of the property as officially appraised is in excess of the mortgage debt.
In the present case the trial court found, upon motion for a deficiency-judgment, that by reason of the existence of prior incumbrances the security available to the mortgagee was not what the appraisal would indicate, but was in fact considerably less than his debt; but the existence of such incumbrances was not alleged either in the complaint or in the motion. Held that such essential fact, not having been alleged, could not legally be found as a basis for a deficiency-judgment.
Argued March 9th
decided June 27th, 1916.
Suit to foreclose a mortgage of real estate, to secure possession, and to obtain a judgment for damages, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in Hartford County, Tuttle, J., upon the plaintiff’s motion for a deficiency-judgment after a strict foreclosure and an ap praisal of the premises; the court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
No error.
Another suit—Max Suisman v. Antonia Pescosolido el als.—in all material respects like this, was tried with it in the court below and was disposed of by that court in like manner; and from its action the plaintiff appealed.
No error.
These actions were brought to foreclose separate mortgages on twin apartment houses for $2,500 each, made by the defendant Pescosolido. The defendant Gorentz was joined in one of the cases upon the allegation that he had purchased one of the apartment houses and assumed the mortgage debt. No allegation is made in either complaint of any prior mortgage or incumbrance on the property. The defendant ,in each case defaulted and stipulated that judgment might be entered in the sum of $2;926.50, and that the time limited for redemption should be the third Tuesday of June, 1915. In each case the plaintiff moved for the appointment of appraisers, who reported, within ten days after the time limited for redemption had expired, that the value of the property in each case was $8,800. The plaintiff then moved for deficiency-judgments, and the court denied the motions. From the denial of these motions the plaintiff in each case appeals. The two cases were argued together in this court.
Saul Berman and Moses A. Berman, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Sidney E. Clarke and Francis E. Jones, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion:
Beach, J.
On the face of these records the Superior Court did not err in refusing to render supplemental deficiency-judgments. The appraisal, which, by stat ute, is made part of the record, is in each ease far in excess of the mortgage debt, and whatever right the plaintiff has to a deficiency-judgment depends entirely on certain essential facts which he has not pleaded, either in the complaint or in a written motion for a deficiency-judgment, and which do not appear of record, to wit, the existence and amount of prior incumbrances on the properties, by reason of which his available mortgage security is not what the appraisal would indicate, but is in reality less than the mortgage debt in each case.
It follows that on this state of the record no valid deficiency-judgment could have been rendered in either of these cases. The findings of the trial court made for the purposes of these appeals are not a part of the record; and no supplemental judgment which depended for its validity upon facts found and not pleaded could properly have been rendered. DeLucia v. Valente, 83 Conn. 107, 75 Atl. 150; Greenthal v. Lincoln, Seyms & Co., 67 Conn. 372, 35 Atl. 266.
This conclusion disposes of these appeals, and since the ninety days after the expiration of the time limited for redemption, within which a supplemental judgment may be rendered in the foreclosure suit, have already elapsed, it is unnecessary to pass upon the plaintiff's claim that the statute is mandatory, and requires the court in which the foreclosure is pending to render a supplemental judgment in all cases where the other terms and conditions of the statute are complied with.
There is no error in either case.
In this opinion Prentice, C. J., Thayer and Roraback, Js., concurred.