A court has ordered that a long-vacant New Canaan home go to auction this month, bringing to a close what court documents show to be a bitter years-long fight following a divorce.
The home at 4 Woodridge Circle in New Canaan will go to public auction on the morning of Saturday, June 18, 2016. JB photo
Cited for blight last summer, the fair market value of the 5-bedroom Colonial and 2.05-acre property at 4 Woodridge Circle is $1,365,000, according to an April 29 appraisal ordered by state Superior Court in Stamford.
An inspection will be held there at 9 a.m. on Saturday, June 18, with a live auction to follow at 10 a.m. The committee attorney appointed to oversee the public auction sale is Joseph DaSilva Jr. of Norwalk-based DePanfilis & Vallerie LLC.
It’s encumbered by two liens—a mortgage and home equity line totaling nearly $1.3 million, court records show—and hasn’t been lived in for more than two years. The appraiser’s notes list front porch damage, cracked dining room window, broken shutters, exterior siding damage, basement ceiling damage, broken basement window and mold in a bath and basement.
In a Motion for Advice filed May 20, DaSilva notes that in his experience, “it is extremely rare for an auction sale to conclude with a final successful bid that is in excess of 94 percent of the fair market value of the property being sold.”
“Moreover, the undersigned committee believes such a result would be highly unlikely in this case. This is first due to the high value of the property, which will inevitably limit the number of potential buyers. Secondarily, at least as of the committee’s inspection of the property in late April with the appraiser, the grounds of the property evidence a significant level of neglect. Specifically, the grounds and exterior areas of the property are overgrown and do not appear to have been recently maintained. Leaves do not appear to have been removed after the fall of 2015. Branches and tree limbs were scattered about the property, with one large limb having fallen down onto a collapsing swing set. The lawn did not appear to have been mowed in some time. Shrubs and trees were generally overgrown, impinging in one instance on the ability to open a gate to the pool area. While none of these conditions would be impossible to remedy, the undersigned believes that, collectively, these conditions could well have a deleterious impact upon potential bidders opinion of the property and correspondingly their bids as well.”
It’s been more than seven years since the court granted a divorce to the people who had owned the 1958-built Colonial there, purchased in 2000 for $1,650,000. The home was to be sold, with net proceeds divided between the former husband and wife.
Yet, according to a motion filed on behalf of the ex-wife by her attorneys at Southport-based Lax & Truax in December, “in the intervening seven years, the house has been listed for sale for only six months.”
“During the time of the listing contract, the parties received six offers for the purchase of the house. The defendant rejected or failed to respond to all six offers. In addition, at the expiration of the listing contract, the defendant refused to sign a new listing agreement.”
Court proceedings continued into 2013, and the court found in a decision issued in March 2014 that “in analyzing the facts presented, the court finds that the defendant’s allegations and his testimony lack credibility.”
“Contrary to his claim that the plaintiff’s action hampered the sale of the marital home, the credible testimony of … the plaintiff … [contradicts] his allegations regarding the plaintiff’s marketing the marital home for sale. Rather it was the defendant’s conduct that played a large role in hindering the process. For example, it was the defendant who agreed to attend the walk-through at first, changed his mind and then proposed that his secretary stand as his substitute and go in his place. It was the defendant who ultimately decided not to participate in the walk-through. It was the defendant who did not respond to all six of the offers tendered … It was the defendant who was seeking to reduce any potential exposure he may have had resulting form the tank remediation efforts as long as the plaintiff assumed the possible risks together with him. The defendant’s actions and inactions had consequences and those consequences impacted the potential sale of the marital home.”
The ex-husband—a Norwalk resident, according to court records—appealed that decision, which then was upheld by an appellate court. He challenged that decision in the Connecticut Supreme Court and was denied again by way of a March 2015 order, court records show.
He “has never complied” with the original court’s decision, according to the ex-wife’s motion in December, “using every judicial tool at his disposal to delay the sale of the residence, and simply refusing to comply with the court order when no judicial tool is available.”
In February, the ex-husband, representing himself, filed paper work with the court saying that he has been denied an opportunity to inspect the property and that he himself “made an offer better than any offer made” to purchase the home, “and he would assume the risk of the [underground] oil tank.”
Though his ex-wife “had exclusive use and possession of the residence after she abandoned same, some two years ago, she ceased maintenance of the property to the point that the property is totally overgrown and covered in mold,” the man said.
He continued: “All Realtors consulted by the defendant to comply with the current order, require that they be able to inspect the property. In executing a listing, they assume certain obligations and they are interested in safe ingress and egress from the property … The defendant wishes to inspect the property given his potential liability and to determine the extent of the depreciation in value, if any, since plaintiff abandoned the same some two years ago. Defendant is concerned that the residence systems—ie, water, plumbing and heating—may be destroyed and there may be roof leaking.”
The court had ordered that the listing price for the home be set at $1,550,000.