Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Barber v. Jacobs

Connecticut Court of Appeals
753 A.2d 430 (2000)


Facts

Barber (plaintiff) and his family planned to move from Toronto, Canada to Connecticut. Barber and his wife viewed property owned by Robert and Linda Jacobs (defendants) on April 19, 1994. They offered to purchase the property on May 25, 1994, and requested a wetlands inspection on the property. The parties entered into a purchase contract with a closing date of August 8, 1994. The contract included a mortgage contingency clause, which conditioned the transaction upon Barber’s ability to secure a mortgage on the property. Barber also paid a ten percent deposit in the amount of $327,000, which was held in escrow by Irwin K. Liu, the Jacobs’ attorney. Barber applied for a mortgage from the Putnam Trust Company of Greenwich (bank). The bank initially approved the loan but did not give Barber a formal mortgage commitment. Subsequently, Robert Hartch, attorney to both Barber and the bank, reviewed the property’s inland wetlands file and found that the property was in violation of agency regulations. Hartch found that the issue would be a serious obstacle to obtaining a loan, and disclosed this information to both Barber and the bank. The bank reversed its loan approval and issued a denial. Hartch requested that the Jacobs return Barber’s deposit. The Jacobs refused. Barber filed an action for interpleader, seeking a determination of the rights to the deposit. The trial court found that Barber made sufficient reasonable efforts to secure a mortgage.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Daly, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 200,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.