L, S & L Bethany, Inc. v. Baldwin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** L, S & L BETHANY, INC. v. MALCOLM W. BALDWIN (AC 19355) Landau, Hennessy and Zarella, Js. Argued April 26 officially released August 8, 2000 Counsel Max F. Brunswick, for the appellant (plaintiff). Richard M. Shapiro, for the appellee (defendant). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this action for breach of contract for the alleged overpayment of a mortgage note, the plaintiff, L, S & L Bethany, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Malcolm W. Baldwin. The plaintiff claims that the defendant accepted a check for the payment of the mortgage with a notation written on it reserving the plaintiff s right to bring an action disputing the amount of the debt. The trial court granted summary judgment on the theory of res judicata. A previous action between these parties resolved the issue of the amount the plaintiff owed on the mortgage note. The plaintiff claims, however, that it is not precluded from challenging the debt because of the notation written on the check. It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review. Practice Book § 61-10. In this case, the record is inadequate for review because we have not been provided with either a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the trial court. See Practice Book § 64-1. Moreover, the record does not contain the check on which the plaintiff bases its case, nor does the record contain any affidavit from the plaintiff regarding the facts in dispute. Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiff s claim is not reviewable. See Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Saucier, 48 Conn. App. 709, 710, 709 A.2d 610 (1998); Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, 607 609, 710 A.2d 190 (1998). The judgment is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
