Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Citation
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Parent Document
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2009-06-02
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2108173/zenon-v-mossy/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
- Zenon v. Mossy, 970 A.2d 814 (2009)
Full Text
1,119 charsThe record reveals the following facts and procedural history. In 1986, the plaintiff, an experienced real estate broker and developer, purchased a parcel of real estate through a real estate company he owned. He transferred it to B & G Zenon Realty Trust in 1993. In 2001, a purchase agreement was entered into. The defendant paid $2500 as a down payment and signed a promissory note for the $37,500 balance of the purchase price. The purchase agreement provided for the transfer of the property to the buyer, who would then undertake the necessary efforts to gain approval for the subdivision and to develop the parcel into two approved building lots. If such was not possible, the agreement provided that the property would be deeded back to the plaintiff and Helen Zenon, who would return the down payment. The defendant made three unsuccessful attempts to obtain approval from the northeast district department of health for the subdivision of the property into building lots. The defendant’s applications were rejected on the ground that the site was not suitable for development of even a single residential lot.