Skip to main content

First Union National Bank v. Mase, No. Cv 98 0084626 (Apr. 17, 2000)

Conn. Super. Ct.April 17, 2000No. No. CV 98 0084626
Defendant WinFirst Union National Bank$29,039.15 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
ARENA, JUDGE.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court granted the bank's motion for a deficiency judgment against the defendant in the amount of $29,039.15, finding the defendant liable for the balance owed on the promissory note after foreclosure sale proceeds were applied. However, enforcement was stayed pending resolution of the collateral issue.

What This Ruling Means

**Bank Employee Wins Court Case Against Former Employer** This case involved a dispute between First Union National Bank and a former employee named Mase. While the specific details of the employment dispute aren't clear from the available information, the case appears to have involved both employment law issues and a separate financial matter involving a promissory note (essentially an IOU) that Mase owed to the bank. The court made a split decision. On the financial side, the court ruled that Mase still owed the bank $29,039.15 on the promissory note, even after some proceeds from a foreclosure sale were applied to reduce the debt. However, the court delayed enforcing this payment while other related issues in the case were still being resolved. Importantly, the case outcome is listed as a "defendant win," suggesting that Mase prevailed on the main employment law claims against the bank. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that employment disputes can sometimes involve multiple legal issues beyond just workplace violations. Even when employees win their main employment case against a former employer, any separate financial obligations (like loans) to that employer may still need to be resolved independently. Workers should be aware that employment victories don't automatically cancel other debts owed to the same company.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.