Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Sec. 42a-2A-410. Lessor's and lessee's rights when goods become accessions. (a) In this section, “accessions” means goods that are installed in or affixed to other goods.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this section, the interest of a lessor or a lessee under a lease contract entered into before the goods become accessions is superior to all interests in the whole and valid against all persons subsequently acquiring interests in the whole, but is invalid against any person with an interest in the whole that has not in a record consented to the lease or disclaimed an interest in the goods as part of the whole.
(c) The interest of a lessor or a lessee under a lease contract described in subsection (b) of this section is subordinate to the interest of:
(1) A buyer in the ordinary course of business or a lessee in the ordinary course of business of any interest in the whole acquired after the goods became accessions; or
(2) A creditor with a security interest in the whole perfected before the lease contract was made to the extent that the creditor makes subsequent advances without knowledge of the lease contract.
(d) If, under this section, a lessor or lessee holds an interest in accessions which has priority over the claims of all persons that have interests in the whole, the lessor or lessee on default, expiration, termination or cancellation of the lease contract by the other party but subject to the provisions of the lease contract and this article, or if necessary to enforce other rights under this article, may remove the goods from the whole. However, the lessor or lessee shall reimburse any holder of an interest in the whole which is not the lessee and which has not otherwise agreed for the cost of repair of any physical injury, but not for any diminution in value of the whole, caused by the absence of the goods removed or by any necessity for replacing them. A person entitled to reimbursement may refuse permission to remove the goods until the party seeking removal gives adequate security for the performance of this obligation.
(P.A. 02-131, S. 37.)
Nov 27, 2023
Superior
Hartford County, CT
Jan 26, 2024
Hartford County
Hartford County, CT
HFH-CV22-6019756-S Superior Court Ansonia Acquisitions I, LLC, Housing Session d/b/a Woodcliff Estates (80 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106) v. Annette Rodriguez …
Mar 28, 2022
DOCKET NO.: NNH CV-12-6031105S = : SUPERIOR COURT NRT NEW ENGLAND LLC d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. : ATNEW HAVEN CHRISTOPHER G. L. JONES : SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On July 28, 2014 this court rendered a Memorandum of Decision finding that the plaintiff had proven damages of $34,375.00 on the second count. This court scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and the amount of the total judgmen…
Jul 10, 2012
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. | AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 AMENDED COMPLA FIRST COUNT 1. is is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-11 0b(a), prohibiting u…
Feb 17, 2015
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH : Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. : AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT 1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a), prohibiting …
Feb 17, 2015
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, z SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH ie Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : April 24, 2015 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT In the above entitled action, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which is appended to this request, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 10-60(a)(3). BY: St MA. e Jeremy Collins & Molly Mc@ulloug…
Feb 17, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.