Alco Standard Corp. v. Charnas – Case Brief Summary (Connecticut)

In Alco Standard Corp. v. Charnas, 56 Conn. App. 568, 744 A.2d 924 (2000) the court construed language nearly identical to the language in the note signed by the defendant in the present case and applied it in a foreclosure action. "The language of the note is clear and unambiguous; it differentiates between monetary and nonmonetary defaults, and provides for notice of default and an opportunity to cure only with reference to the latter. The default in this case was for failure to make payments as promised. Therefore, there was no obligation to provide notice of default. We do not agree with the defendants' argument that any default, including nonpayment, requires a notice of default and an opportunity to cure. That interpretation flies in the face of the note's clear language and would cause the entire first phrase of the default paragraph to be without a specific legal meaning. Clearly, the language addresses two separate and distinct alternatives that would cause the unpaid principal to become immediately due. Those are (1) payment not being made as promised or (2) the occurrence of some other violation of the agreement that is not cured within thirty days of written notice.

"Because the note did not require notice of default for failure to make payment, there was no genuine issue of material fact, and summary judgment as to liability was properly rendered." Id., 572.