Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response

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.




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



which to form an opinion or belief, and therefore leave plaintiff to his proof. The

remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 are admitted.








B. As to the allegations of Paragraph B, these defendants have insufficient



L As to the allegations of Paragraph g, these defendants have insufficient






11. Paragraph 11 is denied.


2



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.



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.






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,


F_OU RTH COU NT: (Uniust En richment)


are hereby made defendants'responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Fourth




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



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)


are hereby made defendants' responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Sixth


13. Paragraphs 13, 13a, 13b and 13c are denied.



5



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



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.



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

Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response

Documents

Transcript of Melisi v. Oxford, Town's Response