Date post: | 03-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | the-valley-indy |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
7/28/2019 Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melisi-v-oxford-towns-response 1/8
DOCKET NO. AAN-CV1 3-601 261 4-S
ANGELO MELISI
VS.
STATE MARSHAL ARTHUR DAVIES ANDTOWN OF OXFORD
SUPERIOR COURT
J.D. OF ANSONIA-MILFORD
AT MILFORD
APRIL 30, 2013
ANSWER, SpECtAL DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLATMSOF DEFENDANTS TOWN OF OXFORD,
GEORGE TEMPLE AND CAYENNE SPREMULLO
Pursuant to Practice Book S 10-46 ef seq., Defendants Town of Oxford, George
Temple and Cayenne Spremullo, respectfully answer Plaintiff Angelo Melisi's
Complaint, dated March 12,2013, as follows:
FACTS AS TO ALL COUNTS:
1. Paragraph 1 is admitted.
2. As to the allegations of Paragraph 2, these defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave
plaintiff to his proof.
3. As to the allegations of Paragraph 3, these defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave
plaintiff to his proof.
4. As to so much of Paragraph 4 as alleges, "despite a vigorous defense by
the current owner", these defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon
7/28/2019 Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melisi-v-oxford-towns-response 2/8
which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave plaintiff to his proof. The
remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 are admitted.
5. As to the allegations of Paragraph 5, these defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave
plaintiff to his proof.
6. As to the allegations of Paragraph 6, these defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave
plaintiff to his proof.
7. Paragraph 7 is admitted.
B. As to the allegations of Paragraph B, these defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave
plaintiff to his proof.
L As to the allegations of Paragraph g, these defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave
plaintiff to his proof.
10. As to the allegations of Paragraph 10, these defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave
plaintiff to his proof.
11. Paragraph 11 is denied.
12. Paragraph 12 is denied.
2
7/28/2019 Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melisi-v-oxford-towns-response 3/8
FIRST COUNT: (Fraudulent Non-Disclosure)
1-12, These defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 o'f the Facts,
are hereby made defendants'responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 o'f this First Count,
as if fully set out herein.
13. Paragraph 13 is admitted.
14. Paragraph 14 is denied.
15. So much of Paragraph 15 as alleges, "[t]he fraudulent non-disclosures", is
denied. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15, these defendants have
insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and
therefore leave plaintiff to his proof.
16. So much of Paragraph 16 as alleges, "[a]s a result of the fraudulent non-
disclosure", is denied. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 16, these
defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or
belief, and therefore leave plaintiff to his proof.
SECOND COUNT: (Fraudulent Mislepresentatiqn)
1-12. These defendants'responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts,
are hereby made defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Second
Count, as if fully set out herein.
13. Paragraph 13 is denied.
14. Paragraph 14 is denied.
15. Paragraph 15 is denied.
7/28/2019 Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melisi-v-oxford-towns-response 4/8
THIRD GOUNT: (Breach of Contract)
1-12. These defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts,
are hereby made defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Third
Count, as if fully set out herein,
13. Paragraph 13 is denied.
F_OU RTH COU NT: (Uniust En richment)
1-12. These defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts,
are hereby made defendants'responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Fourth
Count, as if fully set out herein.
13. Paragraph 13 is denied.
14. Paragraph 14 is denied.
FIFTH COUNT: (Conversion)
1-12, These defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts,
are hereby made defendants'responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12of this Fifth Count,
as if fully set out herein.
13. So much of Paragraph 13 as alleges, "which was a wrongful detention of
the Plaintiff's personal propefty", is denied. As to the remaining allegations of
Paragraph 13, these defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which
to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave plaintiff to his proof,
14. So much of Paragraph 14 as alleges, "and provide the Defendant with the
deed for the property after the six month redemption period", is denied. As to so much
of Paragraph 14 as alleges, "ar'rd failed to return the deposit", these defendants have
7/28/2019 Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melisi-v-oxford-towns-response 5/8
insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief, and
therefore leave plaintiff to his proof. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 are
admitted.
15. Paragraph '15 is denied.
SIXTH CQUNT: (CUTPA)
1-12. These defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts,
are hereby made defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Sixth
Count, as if fully set out herein.
13. Paragraphs 13, 13a, 13b and 13c are denied.
14. Paragraph 14 is denied.
15. Paragraph 15 is denied.
5
7/28/2019 Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melisi-v-oxford-towns-response 6/8
BY WAY OF SPECIAL DEFENSE
First Special Defense To The First. Second and Sixth Counts
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity pursuant to
common law and Connecticut General Statutes $ 52-557n.
Second Special Defense To AI! Counts
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Third Special Defense To The First Count
Defendants owed the plaintiff no duty to speak or make a disclosure regarding
the matters alleged.
Fourth Special Defense To All Counts
Plaintiff's damages, if any, are limited to the amount provided for under
subsection (b) of General Statutes S 12-158.
Fifth Special Defense To All Counts
Defendants' sale of the subject property to plaintiff is valid pursuant to General
Statutes S 12-1 59.
Sixth Special Defense To All Counts
Defendant, Town of Oxford, is entitled to damages pursuant to General Statutes
$ 12-159a.
6
7/28/2019 Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melisi-v-oxford-towns-response 7/8
GOUNTERCLAIMS
COUNT ONE . BREACH OF CONTRACT
1. Counterclaim Plaintiff, the Town of Oxford (the "Town"), is a municipal
corporation with a principal place of business at 486 Oxford Road, Oxford, Connecticut.
2. Counterclaim Defendant, Angelo Melisi ("Melisi"), is an individual residing
al75 Mulberry Lane, Shelton, Connecticut,
3. On or about June 28, 2012, the Town, by and through its agent, Arlhur J.
Davies, Connecticut State Marshal, held a tax sale for a certain parcel of real property
located at 66 Hawley Road, Oxford, Connecticut (the "Property") pursuant to
Connecticut General Statutes S 12-155, et seq.
4. Melisi bid $600,000 to purchase the Property, which bid was accepted
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the sale provided to him at that time.
5. Melisi agreed to provide a $100,000 non-refundable deposit and the
balance of $500,000 within ten (10) days in consideration of and for his purchase of the
Property, as set forth in the executed acknowledgment attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Melisi paid the $100,000 deposit but has breached his agreement by
failing, refusing or neglecting to pay the balance of $500,000, despite due demand
having been made thereof,
7. By reason of the foregoing breach of contract by Melisi, Plaintiff has
suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than
$500,000.
7/28/2019 Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melisi-v-oxford-towns-response 8/8
COUNT TWO - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
1-7. Paragraphs 1 through 7 of Count One are hereby incorporated as if
alleged herein.
8. Title to the Property has been recorded in Melisi's name.
9. Melisi has inequitably appropriated, accepted and retained the value of the
Property.
10. The value of the Property which remains unpaid by Melisi, to his benefit,
despite having been duly demanded is $500,000.
11. Melisi has been unjustly enriched in the sum of $500,000, plus interest, at
the Town's expense and to its detriment.
12. By reason of the foregoing, Melisi is indebted to the Town in an amount to
be determined at trial but in no event less than $500,000 plus interest on the basis of
unjust enrichment.
WHEREFORE, the Town claims:
(a) Compensatory damages;
(b) Pre- and post-judgment interest;
(c) Costs;
(d) Expenses; and
(e) Such other relief as the Court may deem as just and proper.
I