The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Foreclosure Law

Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=494

AC38840 - Reserve Realty, LLC v. BLT Reserve, LLC (Foreclosure; broker's lien; "In this action to foreclose a real estate broker's lien, the plaintiffs, The Reserve Realty, LLC (Reserve Realty) and Theodore Haddad, Sr., as executor of the estate of Jeanette Haddad, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant BLT Reserve, LLC (BLT). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that (1) the purchase and sale agreement upon which they based their claim for brokerage fees constituted part of an illegal tying arrangement in violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act, (2) the listing agreements entered into pursuant to such purchase and sale agreement did not comply with General Statutes § 20-325a, and (3) such listing agreements were unenforceable by the plaintiffs because they were personal to Jeanette Haddad. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38442 - Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC (Foreclosure; broker's lien;"In this action to foreclose a real estate broker's lien, the plaintiffs, The Reserve Realty, LLC (Reserve Realty) and Theodore Haddad, Sr., as executor of the estate of Jeanette Haddad, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Windemere Reserve, LLC (Windemere). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that (1) the purchase and sale agreement upon which they base their claim for brokerage fees constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act, (2) the listing agreements entered into pursuant to such purchase and sale agreement did not comply with General Statutes § 20-325a, and (3) such listing agreements were unenforceable by the plaintiffs because they were personal to Jeanette Haddad. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38239 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Owen (Foreclosure; motion for default for failure to plead; "The defendants Marlene E. Owen and William S. Owen appeal from the denial of their motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The defendants claim that the court abused its discretion in denying their motion because they showed good cause to warrant opening the judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Research Guides Updated in April 2017

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=434

Two foreclosure law research guides were updated in April and have been posted to our research guides page.

You can visit our Law about Foreclosure page for all of our available foreclosure research guides.


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=429

AC38051 - Bank of America, National Assn. v. La Mesa ("The defendant Michael La Mesa appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of America, National Association. The sole issue on appeal is whether the defendant's April 22, 2015 notice of rescission, sent pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38638 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Nelson ("The self-represented defendant Moses Nelson appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the underlying strict foreclosure judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Bank of America Funding Corporation 2007-1. On appeal, the defendant makes a variety of claims challenging the court's rulings on his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and motion to dismiss the underlying strict foreclosure action.

"After reviewing and considering the record in this case, the briefs and the arguments of the parties on appeal, we conclude that the court properly denied the defendant's motion to open because once the law day passed the title of the property vested in the plaintiff and not the defendant....")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=416

AC38413 - Glastonbury v. Sakon ("The defendant John Alan Sakon appeals from the orders of the trial court striking his special defenses and from the judgment of nonsuit entered with respect to his counterclaims. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion to strike his original and his substitute special defenses and counterclaims. The appeal is dismissed in part, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part.")

AC38622 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cam ("The defendant Eugene A. Cam appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure claiming that the trial court erred when it concluded that a settlement agreement he had entered into with the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., permitted the plaintiff to pay the defendant a certain sum of money within a 'reasonable time' of the payment deadline provided in the agreement. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=358

SC19560, SC19561 - Burns v. Adler ("The primary issue that we must resolve in this certified appeal is whether the bad faith exception to the bar on the enforcement of home improvement contracts that do not comply with the Home Improvement Act (act), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., entitled the plaintiff contractor, James E. Burns, Jr., to recover damages from the defendant homeowner, David Y. Adler, for home improvement services despite the plaintiff's noncompliance with that statute. The parties entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to furnish materials and supply labor in connection with the renovation of a residence owned by the defendant in the town of Salisbury. After the renovation project was largely complete, a dispute arose regarding amounts that the defendant owed the plaintiff for services performed. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought this action claiming, among other things, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The defendant raised the special defense that the plaintiff's claims were barred because the agreement did not comply with the requirements of General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 20-429. In turn, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was precluded from relying on § 20-429 because his refusal to pay the plaintiff was in bad faith. After a trial to the court, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had incurred damages in the amount of $214,039 and that § 20-429 did not bar recovery because the defendant's refusal to pay was in bad faith. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $214,039. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Burns v. Adler, 158 Conn. App. 766, 808, 120 A.3d 555 (2015). We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) 'Did . . . § 20-429 (f) abrogate the bad faith exception to the [act] created in Habetz v. Condon, 224 Conn. 231, 240, 618 A.2d 501 (1992)?'; and (2) 'Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff?' Burns v. Adler, 319 Conn. 931, 125 A.3d 205 (2015); see also footnote 7 of this opinion. We conclude that the first certified question is not reviewable because it was not raised in the trial court. We further conclude that the defendant did not act in bad faith and, therefore, the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff was barred from invoking the protection of the act. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and conclude that the case must be remanded to the trial court with direction to render judgment for the defendant.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=355

AC37764 - Countrywide Home Loans Servicing L.P. v. Peterson ("The named defendant, Alyssa Peterson, who represented herself before the trial court and continues to do so on appeal, challenges the judgment of the court (1) denying her motion to open the court's judgment of strict foreclosure, and (2) denying her motion to reargue the motion to open. The defendant's principal claim, and the only one we need address at length, is that the court improperly declined to open the judgment of strict foreclosure in order to correct an erroneous determination of the debt owed by the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=337

AC38219 - 21st Mortgage Corp. v. Schumacher ("The defendant, Christopher N. Schumacher, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, 21st Mortgage Corporation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment as to liability after finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff is the holder of the note and the party entitled to foreclose. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=315

SC19661 - ARS Investors II 2012-1 HVB, LLC v. Crystal, LLC (" In this appeal, we consider whether a trial court may render a judgment of foreclosure on mortgaged property that consists of parcels of land within a subdivision that has not been approved by municipal zoning authorities. We conclude that our law permits a trial court to order foreclosure in such circumstances.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=299

AC38127 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pardo ("The defendant Carlos A. Pardo appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss and motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee under the Pooling Servicing Agreement relating to IMPAC Secured Assets Corp., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3. He claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) dismissed, pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15, his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure as moot. We conclude that neither of these claims are persuasive and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=292

AC37510 - Izzo v. Quinn (Foreclosure of mechanic's lien; "The defendant, Richard Quinn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his four count counterclaim against the plaintiff, Benedetto Izzo, doing business as New Haven Drywall. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in dismissing his counterclaim on the ground that he had failed to join an indispensable or necessary party. We agree, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=256

AC37548 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cornelius ("The defendant . . . appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered after the entry of a second default for failure to plead. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present foreclosure action, (2) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to strike the complaint, and (3) the trial court erroneously denied his motion to set aside the second default for failure to plead. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Foreclosure Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=222

SC19672 - Connecticut National Mortgage Co. v. Knudsen ("The original plaintiff, Connecticut National Mortgage Company, commenced this action in 1989 seeking to foreclose a mortgage on a parcel of real property that is owned by the named defendant, Lise-Lotte Knudsen, and is located in the town of Redding. Although the trial court had rendered a judgment of foreclosure in 1994, that judgment has been opened and modified several times over the years. Eventually, on August 20, 2012, the plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., was substituted as the plaintiff. On June 8, 2015, the trial court rendered a new judgment of strict foreclosure that extended the defendant's law day to August 4, 2015. On June 17, 2015, the defendant filed a motion for permission to file a motion to vacate the new judgment, which was denied on June 18, 2015. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court on June 26, 2015, within the twenty day appeal periods triggered by both the new judgment and the denial of the defendant's subsequent motion...."

"The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=146

AC37905 - Great Country Bank v. Ogalin ("In this foreclosure action, a third party, Drywall Construction Corporation of Connecticut, Inc. (Drywall), appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiff Cadle Company a turnover order in the amount of $19,887.27 to aid in the execution of a deficiency judgment rendered against the defendant Frank Ogalin, Jr. Drywall claims that (1) the court erroneously found that, as of the date on which the plaintiff served a property execution on Drywall, it owed the defendant unreimbursed business expenses, and (2) even if the court properly found that it owed the defendant unreimbursed business expenses, it improperly awarded the plaintiff a turnover order because the expenses at issue constituted earnings for personal services, which are not the proper subject of a property execution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=105

AC37645 - Washington Mutual Bank v. Coughlin ("The defendants Linda S. Coughlin and Daniel F. Coughlin appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. The defendants' sole claim on appeal is that the court improperly denied their motion to dismiss, filed on the eve of trial. In that motion, they argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the original plaintiff's purported failure to comply with the notice requirement set forth in General Statutes § 8-265ee (a), which is part of the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP). See General Statutes §§ 8-265cc through 8-265kk. The plaintiff responds that the original plaintiff did provide notice of EMAP to the defendants out of an abundance of caution, but that the defendants were not entitled to notice under § 8-265ee because the subject property was not their principal residence at the time the action was commenced. See General Statutes § 8-265ff. Accordingly, it contends that the court properly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the plaintiff that the defendants were not entitled to notice pursuant to § 8-265ee, and, thus, we do not decide whether, in a case in which § 8-265ee is applicable, failure to comply with its notice requirement implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=39

AC37896 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Aubut ("In this residential foreclosure action, the defendants, David Aubut and Karen Aubut, appeal following the trial court’s judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in rendering summary judgment as to liability only in favor of the substitute plaintiff because: (1) the court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Karen Aubut was provided with preacceleration notice of default in the manner required by the terms of the mortgage; (2) the court improperly accepted an affidavit submitted in support of the substitute plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) the court improperly concluded as a matter of law that the defendants could not prevail with respect to their special defenses. We agree, in part, with the defendants’ third claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=195

January 2014 - July 2016 (reverse chronological order)

AC37896 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Aubut ("In this residential foreclosure action, the defendants, David Aubut and Karen Aubut, appeal following the trial court’s judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in rendering summary judgment as to liability only in favor of the substitute plaintiff because: (1) the court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Karen Aubut was provided with preacceleration notice of default in the manner required by the terms of the mortgage; (2) the court improperly accepted an affidavit submitted in support of the substitute plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) the court improperly concluded as a matter of law that the defendants could not prevail with respect to their special defenses. We agree, in part, with the defendants’ third claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37754 - Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Genesis Ltd. Partnership ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant Professional Services Group, Inc., appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the motion filed by the plaintiff, Bellmore Partners, Inc., to dismiss the defendant's cross claim. The defendant claims that the court erred by granting the plaintiff's motion to dismiss because it improperly concluded that the defendant lacked standing. We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment of the court.")

AC37940 - Habitat for Humanity of Coastal Fairfield County, Inc. v. Lanham (Foreclosure; "The defendant Kim Lanham appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure, rendered by the trial court, in favor of the plaintiff, Habitat for Humanity of Coastal Fairfield County, Inc. After reviewing and considering the record in this case, including the briefs and arguments of the parties on appeal, we conclude that the court properly rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure. There is no error.

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of setting new law days.")

AC37887 - U.S. Bank, N.A., Trustee v. Morawska ("The defendant...appeals from the reentry of the judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff...following the lifting of a bankruptcy stay. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) should have held oral argument before denying her petition for reinclusion in the foreclosure mediation program, (2) was not permitted to make new findings as to the amount of the debt when setting a new law day, and (3) improperly denied her motion to reargue. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37266 - HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Lahr ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, she claims that the court improperly denied her motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure. Specifically, she argues that no further actions should have occurred in the case after she had filed a suggestion of death regarding the defendant Charles Lahr (decedent) until the plaintiff applied for an order to substitute the decedent's executor or administrator as provided in General Statutes § 52-599, the survival of cause of action statute. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC19509 - Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. Limberger (Foreclosure of statutory ([Rev. to 2011]) § 47-258 [m] [3]) common charges lien; motion to dismiss; Common Interest Ownership Act (§ 47-200 et seq.); "Under Connecticut's Common Interest Ownership Act (act), General Statutes § 47-200 et seq., the executive board of a common interest community may commence an action against a unit owner to foreclose a lien for common charges under specified conditions, including that it either has voted to institute the particular foreclosure proceeding or has previously adopted a standard foreclosure policy under which that foreclosure would be authorized. General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 47-258 (m) (3). The present case requires us to determine whether a standard foreclosure policy is a "rule" subject to the act's notice and comment requirements and, if so, whether the failure to adhere to those procedural requirements is a jurisdictional defect. The defendant Jill M. Limberger appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, The Neighborhood Association, Inc. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff's standard foreclosure policy is an “internal business operating procedure”—not a rule—and, thus, not subject to the notice and comment requirements for a rule. See General Statutes § 47-261b. We conclude that the standard foreclosure policy is a rule and that the rule-making requirements are jurisdictional. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court with direction to dismiss the plaintiff's action.")

AC37756 - Profetto v. Lombardi ("The defendant...appeals from the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale of a judgment lien that had been placed on the defendant's residential property by the plaintiff.... The purpose of the judgment lien was to secure the order of the court, Burke, J., contained in the parties' dissolution judgment, that required the defendant to pay the plaintiff $72,172.31 plus interest at the rate of 6 percent from the date of that judgment. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court should have concluded that the foreclosure of a judgment lien was 'not the appropriate vehicle to enforce a family support judgment' in a dissolution action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37530 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ruggiri ("The defendant Martin Ruggiri appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his 'motion to reopen judgment of strict foreclosure and motion to reargue and set aside motion for summary judgment' (motion to open). In the motion to open, the defendant sought to reargue the motion for summary judgment as to liability filed by the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which the court previously had granted. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in granting the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, on the basis of which it rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure. The plaintiff counters that the defendant may not use the current appeal, which relates only to the ruling on the motion to open, to raise issues regarding the judgment of strict foreclosure and the granting of the motion for summary judgment. Because the only issue properly before us is whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open, and because we conclude that it did not, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37362- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Thompson ("In this foreclosure action, the self-represented defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant claims, among other things, that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action because it was not in possession of the subject note at the time the action was commenced. Because the resolution of this claim is dependent upon a factual finding that is not part of the appellate record, and because this claim implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court, we are unable to review the merits of this appeal. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")

AC37729 - Property Asset Management, Inc. v. Lazarte ("The defendant...appeals from the trial court's denial of her postjudgment motion to dismiss the underlying foreclosure action. The defendant claims that the original plaintiff, Property Asset Management, Inc., lacked standing to initiate the action because it was not the owner of the debt or vested with the rights of an owner at the time that the action was initiated, and, therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the substitute plaintiff, US Bank, National Association, as Trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2013-3T. The defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) determined that she failed to produce evidence necessary to rebut the presumption that the original plaintiff had standing by virtue of its possession of the mortgage note, endorsed in blank, at the time that the action was filed and (2) failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC38637 - Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. v. Christiansen ("The substituted plaintiff, Mid Pac Portfolio, LLC, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of the defendant...from the judgment of the trial court denying his third motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and from the foreclosure judgment. The plaintiff argues that this appeal is moot because the denial of the defendant's third motion to open did not stay the running of the law days and, thus, title to the subject property has vested in the plaintiff. We agree with the plaintiff that this court can provide no practical relief on appeal, and, therefore, we grant the plaintiff's motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as moot.")

AC37265 - Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. Alfaro ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion for attorney's fees because it found that he did not successfully defend the foreclosure action instituted by the plaintiff...who withdrew the action as a matter of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36736 - M.U.N. Capital, LLC v. National Hall Properties, LLC ("The former defendant, National Hall Capital, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its motion to open and to vacate a 2010 judgment of strict foreclosure regarding property located at, inter alia, 6 Wilton Road in the town of Westport, to which it was not a party and by which it was not bound. The former defendant claims that the plaintiff in the 2010 foreclosure action...did not have standing to initiate and proceed with the foreclosure, and, therefore, the trial court never had subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The former defendant seeks to have the foreclosure judgment opened and vacated, with the hope that it then will be able to open and vacate a 2010 summary process default judgment that was rendered against it, which resulted in the termination of its leasehold interest in the Wilton Road property.

"Following oral argument in this appeal, we asked the parties to submit simultaneous supplemental briefs addressed to the following: '1. Whether National Hall Capital, LLC, a nonparty to the underlying foreclosure action, had standing to file a motion to open the foreclosure judgment? 2. Whether a nonparty can appeal the dismissal of a motion to open a judgment in a case in which it was not a party? 3. What practical relief can this court provide to National Hall Capital, LLC, in this appeal?' We conclude that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ")

AC37269 - Salisbury Bank & Trust Co. v. Christophersen ("The defendant...individually and as trustee, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by ordering a judgment of strict foreclosure rather than a foreclosure by sale. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37717 - AS Peleus, LLC v. Success, Inc. ("The defendant Success, Inc., appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... The defendant claims that the court (1) erroneously found that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the promissory note and mortgage deeds in question and (2) improperly accepted the testimony of a representative of the plaintiff's mortgage servicing company. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. ")

AC37001 - TD Bank, N.A. v. Doran ("The defendants...appeal from the deficiency judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff...in the amount of $167,022.23. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) improperly concluded that their special defense of laches was not relevant to the deficiency judgment proceeding and (2) erroneously found that the plaintiff did not inexcusably delay the strict foreclosure proceedings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC19483 - J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Properties, LLC ("In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court properly relied on the appraisal submitted by the substitute plaintiff, Shaw’s New London, LLC (plaintiff), and the testimony of the plaintiff’s appraiser in granting the plaintiff’s motion for a deficiency judgment against the named defendant, Signature Properties, LLC (Signature), and the defendants Andrew J. Julian, Maureen Julian, and Michael Murray. The defendants Andrew J. Julian and Murray (defendants) appeal from the trial court’s judgment and claim that it was improper to rely on the appraisal and the appraiser’s testimony because they expressed an opinion on the value of the leased fee interest in the mortgaged property and the plaintiff was required to establish the value of the fee simple interest. The defendants further argue that the value of the leased fee interest and fee simple interest of the mortgaged property are not equivalent. The plaintiff responds that it was proper to appraise the value of the leased fee interest in the mortgaged property because the day title to the property vested in the plaintiff, it was encumbered by three leases. Alternatively, the plaintiff contends that the value of the leased fee and fee simple interests in the mortgaged property are equal because the leases were at market rates. We conclude that the trial court’s reliance on the appraisal and the appraiser’s testimony was proper and affirm its judgment.")

AC37340 - Seminole Realty, LLC v. Sekretaev ("The self-represented defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's determination that the plaintiff had standing to bring this action, notwithstanding his arguments to the contrary, and its rejection of his special defenses and two counts of his three count counterclaim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC19481 - JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mendez ("The named defendant...appeals from the order of the trial court, claiming that the court erroneously applied General Statutes § 52-212 in denying her motion to open and vacate the judgment of foreclosure by sale and that the court should have applied the standard articulated in General Statutes § 49-15. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly applied § 52-212, which governs the opening of judgments rendered upon default or nonsuit, rather than § 49-15, which governs the opening of judgments of strict foreclosure. The defendant contends that § 52-212 does not apply to judgments of foreclosure by sale, because such judgments are not final. Accordingly, the defendant contends that this court should construe § 49-15 to apply not only to judgments of strict foreclosure but also to judgments of foreclosure by sale. We do not reach these issues, however, because we determine that the defendant's claim is moot.")

AC36873 - Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Avidon ("The defendant Vladimir Avidon appeals from the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale entered on May 5, 2014, in favor of the substituted plaintiff, Capital One, N.A. (Capital One). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, (2) denied the defendant's motion to open the default for failure to plead, and (3) struck the defendant's answer with special defenses. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. ")

AC36718 - Trumbull v. Palmer ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff...to open a judgment of dismissal and return the present action to the Superior Court docket. On appeal, the defendant claims, inter alia, that the court lacked the authority to grant the plaintiff's motion to open. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37193 - Ellington v. Robert ("In this matter concerning the foreclosure of tax liens, the self-represented defendant, Paul Robert, appeals from the supplemental judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Ellington (town). On appeal the defendant claims that the court erred in rendering the supplemental judgment and in denying the defendant's motion to open that judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36681 - JPMorgan Case Bank, National Assn. v. Simoulidis ("The present case is one of a number of foreclosure actions in which the loan originated with the now failed Washington Mutual Bank, FA (bank). As in many foreclosure actions, the borrowers in the present case sought to avoid foreclosure by filing a motion to dismiss, claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court, Hon. Kevin Tierney, judge trial referee, denied the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, the court, Mintz, J., rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. The defendant Christos Simoulidis appealed claiming that Judge Tierney improperly denied the motion to dismiss because (1) the plaintiff lacked standing and (2) the promissory note and mortgage deed are nullities under our contract law. We affirm the judgment of strict foreclosure.")

AC36962 - People’s United Bank v. Sarno ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court approving a foreclosure by sale in favor of the plaintiff...of property composed of two separate parcels owned by the defendant. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in approving the foreclosure sale. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36838 - AJJ Enterprises, LLP v. Jean-Charles ("This case concerns the trial court's application of the doctrine of equitable subrogation to reorder the priorities of interest of existing liens on a residential property. The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the substitute defendant...reordering the priorities of interest of the mortgages on a piece of residential property located at 10 Carlin Street, Norwalk, and ordering a strict foreclosure with respect to that property.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in: (1) reordering the priority of interest, by applying the doctrine of equitable subrogation, despite the defendant bank having had constructive notice of the plaintiff's properly recorded mortgage on 10 Carlin Street, (2) reducing the amount of the lien held by the plaintiff on the basis of its conclusion that there was a value to a quitclaim deed, previously held by the plaintiff, for commercial property located at 18 Monroe Street, Norwalk, and (3) assigning a value to 18 Monroe Street for 2005 despite the fact that there was no evidence to support such a valuation....We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC36997 - Carriage House I-Enfield Assn., Inc. v. Johnston ("The defendant...appeals from the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale of her condominium unit in favor of the plaintiff...as well as the court's judgment denying her motion for reargument and reconsideration. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly failed to grant her relief under an impossibility defense, and (2) the court erred when it concluded that an allegedly illegal and unenforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant subsequently was rendered legal and enforceable. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC35168, AC35822 - Bomberov. Bombero ("At the nucleus of these consolidated and amended appeals is a monetary dispute between two brothers. In AC 35168, the defendant...appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff...as to the plaintiff's complaint, seeking the foreclosure of a note and the reformation of a mortgage release, and granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim. In AC 35822, the defendant appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff; an amended appeal, designated AC 35822xA01, was filed challenging the court’s subsequent decision to award attorney's fees to the plaintiff. We conclude that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his complaint and, therefore, remand that portion of the case for further proceedings. We dismiss the appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff with respect to the counterclaim.")

AC36910 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Schaeffer ("The plaintiff... appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing this residential real estate foreclosure action against several defendants, including the named defendant...for lack of standing. U.S. Bank claims that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in determining that it lacked standing to enforce the note. U.S. Bank further claims that, pursuant to the correct standard, it has standing to pursue the underlying foreclosure action. We agree, and therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36707 - U.S. Bank National Assn., Trustee v. Works ("The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendant...to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and to set aside the default entered against her for failure to plead. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) opened the judgment of strict foreclosure pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15 (b), and (2) set aside the default entered against the defendant. We conclude that the court had the authority to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and we dismiss the remainder of the plaintiff's appeal for lack of a final judgment.")

AC36219 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bliss (Foreclosure; preemption; claim that plaintiff lacked standing because plaintiff failed to demonstrate it was owner of note endorsed in blank when it commenced action; "The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-5 (Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust), brought this residential real estate foreclosure action against several defendants, including the named defendant, Heather M. Bliss. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering a foreclosure by sale of the subject property. She claims that: (1) the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the present action; (2) the plaintiff failed to prove its prima facie case; and (3) the court improperly concluded that the mortgage was enforceable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36590 - Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Genesis Holdings, LLC ("In October, 2009, this action was commenced by the named plaintiff...to foreclose a mortgage on property in Derby owned by the named defendant....The defendant Professional Services Group, Inc., was named as an additional defendant because it claimed an interest in the property by virtue of a mechanic's lien recorded in the Derby land records. During the pendency of the action, the bank assigned its interest in the property to Bellmore Partners, Inc., which was thereafter substituted as the plaintiff in this matter. On July 19, 2010, the debtor filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, which automatically stayed the foreclosure action. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. On April 12, 2012, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut entered an order granting relief from the automatic stay for the 'limited purpose of determining the extent, validity and priority' of the defendant's mechanic's lien. On June 10, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, which was granted by the court on February 4, 2014."

On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff because (1) a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the validity of the defendant's mechanic's lien, and (2) the court improperly concluded that the defendant's opportunity to foreclose its mechanic's lien had expired. The plaintiff claims, as an alternative ground for affirmance of the court's judgment, that the defendant's claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We conclude that the court erroneously exceeded the terms of the order granting relief from the stay as ordered by the Bankruptcy Court. We also conclude that the defendant was not collaterally estopped from raising its claims before the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36711 - Berkshire Bank v. Hartford Club ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability because the affidavits and exhibits offered in support of the motion were (1) not admissible evidence with respect to the plaintiff's status to enforce the negotiable instrument at issue, and (2) insufficient to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36462 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Sorrentino ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants...appeal from the summary judgment on their counterclaims rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... The defendants claim that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to four of their five counterclaims because the affidavit and other evidence submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment failed to address the factual allegations underlying those counterclaims and, thus, did not demonstrate a lack of a genuine issue of material fact. The plaintiff argues on appeal, however, that the factual allegations in the counterclaims relate to activities that postdate the origination of the loan, the defendant's default and the plaintiff's commencement of this foreclosure action, and that, because they do not relate to the making, validity or enforcement of the mortgage, they fail as a matter of law. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35584 - American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. v. Reilly (Foreclosure; "In this residential foreclosure action, the defendant Geoffrey N. Madow, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Homeward Residential, Inc. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on the foreclosure complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35485 - Spears v. Elder ("The defendant...appeals from (1) the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff...on his complaint and the defendant's counterclaim; (2) the court's order resetting the law days after the filing of the defendant's bankruptcy petition; (3) the court's approval of the committee's sale, deed, report, fees and expenses, and appraiser fees; (4) the court's denial of his claim of the existence of a bankruptcy injunction; (5) the court's overruling of his objections to its approval of the foreclosure sale; and (6) all orders of the court denying his post-February 24, 2014 motions to reargue and to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale. The defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) refused to adjudicate, acknowledge, and protect his statutory homestead exemption both at the time of the rendering of the judgment of foreclosure by sale and at the time the sale was approved, (2) rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the complaint and on the counterclaim, and (3) denied his request to compel discovery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36419 - Customers Bank v. CB Associates, Inc. ("This appeal arises from a stipulated judgment in an action by the plaintiff...to recover sums due and owing to it under a promissory note from the defendant CB Associates, Inc. (CB), secured by a mortgage on several condominium units in Shelton, and a guaranty of CB's obligations under the note by the defendant Wayne R. Blakeman. The stipulated judgment provided: first, that a money judgment in the amount of $1,475,000 would enter in favor of the plaintiff against both defendants; second, that the parties would not contest a separate pending action by a condominium association to foreclose on several of the condominium units; and third, that if the plaintiff later acquired title to all or some of the foreclosed upon condominium units on its assigned law day following the entry of judgment for the condominium association in the foreclosure action, the value of the units so acquired, as determined in the foreclosure action, would be credited to the defendants toward the plaintiff's $1,475,000 judgment against them. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly determined that the defendants fully satisfied the plaintiff's money judgment against them, after it acquired title to the foreclosed upon condominium units, and the foreclosure court had found the units to have an aggregate fair market value of $1.6 million. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly construed the terms of the stipulated judgment, and insists that the true and only value of the foreclosed upon units for purposes of the stipulated judgment should be the total amount for which they were later sold, not their 'hypothetical value,' as found by the foreclosure court in rendering a judgment of strict foreclosure. We affirm the trial court's judgment ordering the plaintiff to prepare and file a notice of satisfaction of judgment.")

AC36561 - Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Morneau ("The defendant...appeals from a judgment of strict foreclosure rendered following the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the substituted plaintiff... On appeal, Moran claims that the court improperly granted summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she held a valid one-half interest in the title of the property that is the subject of foreclosure. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.)

AC35601 - Congress Street Condominium Association, Inc. v. Anderson ("In this action to foreclose a statutory lien for unpaid common charges and fines, the defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the court in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly failed to conclude that the plaintiff’s assessment of fines was invalid because the plaintiff did not afford the defendant a hearing prior to the imposition of those fines. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36474 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Treglia (Foreclosure; "The defendant Patrick A. Treglia and proposed intervenor Richard Treglia appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee. On appeal, Patrick Treglia claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to set aside the default entered against him. Additionally, both Patrick Treglia and Richard Treglia claim that the court improperly denied their motion to cite in Richard Treglia as a party defendant. We reverse the judgment of the trial court denying Patrick Treglia's motion to set aside the default and affirm the judgment denying the motion to cite in Richard Treglia as a party defendant. ")

AC36540 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. McKeith (Foreclosure; "The defendant Melissa J. McKeith, also known as Melissa J. Hopkins, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her motion to open a judgment of strict foreclosure. She claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to open that judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36875 - Norwich v. Norwich Harborview Corp. (Foreclosure; action to foreclose municipal tax liens; "In this foreclosure action, the defendant Norwich Harborview Corporation appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, city of Norwich, on the ground that the trial court committed plain error by approving the sale of the subject property although the court-ordered independent appraisal had not been returned to the court prior to the sale, in accordance with the Uniform Standing Orders for Foreclosure by Sale. We disagree with the defendant, and accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC19289 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Perez ("In this certified appeal, the plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the case to that court with direction to render judgment in favor of the defendants...on the reformation count, and in favor of Shaw on the foreclosure count. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Perez, 146 Conn. App. 833, 844, 80 A.3d 910 (2013). We granted the plaintiff's certification to appeal limited to the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court lacked the authority to reform the mortgage deed in this case?' Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Perez, 311 Conn. 924, 86 A.3d 1058 (2014). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court improperly reformed the mortgage on the basis of the record before it. The Appellate Court held that the trial court lacked clear, substantial and convincing evidence to support the trial court's reformation of the mortgage by adding another party to the mortgage. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Perez, supra, 146 Conn. App. 843.")

AC36198 - Housing Development Fund, Inc. v. Burke Real Estate Management, LLC ("The defendant JRS Investments, LLC (JRS), a junior lienholder, appeals from the judgment of the trial court approving the foreclosure by sale of a six unit apartment building. On appeal, JRS claims that (1) the court abused its discretion by approving the sale where there had not been an inspection of the interior of the individual units, and (2) the court improperly failed to cite in the tenants of the individual apartments as necessary parties. We are not persuaded by these claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36324 - National City Real Estate Services, LLC v. Tuttle ("At issue in this appeal is whether, following a judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff...with respect to property owned by the defendants...the trial court abused its discretion by approving a sale of the property in an amount substantially lower than its fair market value. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances surrounding the court's approval of the sale, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC32247, AC32830 - Gagne v. Vaccaro ("This consolidated appeal comes to us on remand from our Supreme Court. In Gagne v. Vaccaro, 133 Conn. App. 431, 439, 35 A.3d 380 (2012), this court held that the trial court improperly failed to recuse itself from hearing the motion for appellate attorney’s fees, discovery objections, and motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff, J. William Gagne, Jr. Our Supreme Court reversed that decision, concluding that the recusal issue was moot and, therefore, not properly before this court. Gagne v. Vaccaro, 311 Conn. 649, 660, 90 A.3d 196 (2014). The court remanded the case to us with direction to dismiss the appeal as to that issue and to consider the remaining claims advanced by the defendant, Enrico Vaccaro. Id., 662. Consistent with that mandate, we now consider whether the trial court (1) abused its discretion in entering certain discovery orders, (2) lacked authority to impose interest or taxable costs on its award of attorney’s fees, and (3) improperly held the defendant in contempt. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgments of the trial court.")

AC35827 - Noroton Properties, LLC v. Lawendy ("The plaintiff... appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the defendant...in this action to foreclose a commercial mortgage. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was in default of the mortgage note and, accordingly, declined to award the plaintiff an appraisal fee, a title search fee, late fees, default interest, or attorney's fees. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found that the parties mutually agreed to extend the maturity date of the mortgage note, (2) determined that the mortgage note provided a ten day grace period for the payment of the final balloon payment, (3) concluded that the defendant satisfied his obligations by being 'ready, willing and able' to make the final payment in April, 2011, rather than by making a 'bona fide offer and tender' of payment as required by General Statutes § 49-13, (4) found that the plaintiff would not have accepted payment from the defendant in April, 2011, and (5) determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees because the remaining amount due under the mortgage note was not collected in 'court proceedings.' We agree with the plaintiff's first claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36105 - BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Farina (Foreclosure; "The original plaintiff...commenced this residential mortgage foreclosure action in June, 2009, against the defendant.... The defendant appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court on September 10, 2013. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff lacked standing to institute this foreclosure action. We disagree, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. ")

AC36024 - Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Cortese ("The defendant...claims that the trial court (1) improperly concluded that the plaintiff...had standing to bring this foreclosure action, and, thus, that the court had subject matter jurisdiction, on the basis of its erroneous determination that the plaintiff was the holder of the notes at issue, and (2) abused its discretion in permitting the plaintiff to amend its complaint to include an allegation that it was the holder of those notes. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC19118 - E & M Custom Homes, LLC v. Negron ("The plaintiff, E & M Custom Homes, LLC, brought an action seeking the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien on certain real property belonging to the defendants Alberto Negron and Luz Maria Negron in connection with services that the plaintiff had provided related to the construction of a single-family residence on the property....We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal to this court on the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's award of damages on the defendants' counterclaim when the plaintiff claims that the amount due under the contract exceeds the amount of damages claimed by the defendants?' E & M Custom Homes, LLC v. Negron, 308 Conn. 912, 61 A.3d 1099 (2013)."

After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.")

SC19099 - Hartford v. McKeever ("The primary issue that we must resolve in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly determined as a matter of law that the plaintiff, the city of Hartford, as assignee of the note and mortgage executed by the defendant...did not take the note and mortgage subject to the defendant's affirmative claims against the assignor, or, instead, the Appellate Court should have recognized and applied an equitable exception to this rule because the assignor or its predecessors had received overpayments on the note on the plaintiff's behalf. The plaintiff, as the assignee of a promissory note and mortgage executed by the defendant, brought an action to foreclose the mortgage. The defendant filed a five count counterclaim seeking, inter alia, an accounting of amounts paid pursuant to the note and recoupment of any excess amounts paid, including amounts that he had paid to the entity that had assigned the note and mortgage to the plaintiff and that entity's predecessors in interest. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on his counterclaim and awarded him damages of $195,909. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Hartford v. McKeever, 139 Conn. App. 277, 288, 55 A.3d 787 (2012). We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal to this court. Hartford v. McKeever, 307 Conn. 956, 59 A.3d 1191 (2013). The issue that we must address on appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the plaintiff, as the most recent assignee and current holder of the defendant's note, could not be held liable to repay the defendant for sums that were overpaid on the note before it was assigned to the plaintiff. We answer this question in the affirmative and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

AC36108 - Mengwall v. Rutkowski ("The defendant...appeals from the trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to complete an evidentiary hearing prior to denying her motion to dismiss, and (2) denying her motion to reargue. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35690 - Bombero v. Trumbull on the Green, LLC ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether equity and common sense will permit a mortgage, which had been omitted from a prior foreclosure action but which had no value at the time of that action, to now be foreclosed. We hold that it may not and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

SC19048 - JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Winthrop Properties, LLC ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 49-1, under which the foreclosure of a mortgage is a bar to further action against persons liable for the payment of the mortgage debt, note or obligation who are, or may be, made parties to the foreclosure, applies to guarantors of the mortgage note. The mortgagee plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff on its claim against the defendant guarantors of the mortgage debt.... The plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that, following the entry of the judgment of strict foreclosure and lapse of the period provided for filing a motion for a deficiency judgment under General Statutes § 49-14, § 49-1 barred the plaintiff from obtaining any additional remedy from the guarantors. We conclude that § 49-1 had no effect on the plaintiff's ability to recover the remaining unpaid debt from the guarantors because, irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff advanced claims to foreclose the mortgage and to enforce the guarantee in a single cause of action, the guarantors were not parties to the foreclosure claim because their liability arises separately under their guarantee. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

AC35850, AC35851 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Thomas ("In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant...has filed consolidated appeals from the trial court's denial of two motions to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... The defendant claims that the court improperly denied the first motion to open because it reached its decision before hearing the parties' oral argument in violation of her right to due process, and because it refused to hear her claim, raised for the first time at oral argument, that the plaintiff had filed a fraudulent affidavit of debt as evidenced by a consent order between the plaintiff and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States (comptroller). With respect to the second motion to open, the defendant claims that the court improperly failed to open the foreclosure judgment to allow her to present 'new evidence regarding the fraudulent actions of the plaintiff in obtaining the initial [foreclosure] judgment.' We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC35632 - U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Foote ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court following the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because (1) the action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel; (2) the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for foreclosure; and (3) a prior judgment of dismissal against the plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact as to the plaintiff's status as holder of the note at the time the present action was commenced. The defendant further claims that, because the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment, the court improperly rendered judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC30600 - Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers ("This case comes to us on remand from our Supreme Court. We previously remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plaintiff, Equity One, Inc., had standing. Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 125 Conn. App. 201, 9 A.3d 379 (2010). Our Supreme Court reversed our decision and determined that the trial court properly found that the plaintiff had standing to bring the action. Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 310 Conn. 119, 74 A.3d 1225 (2013). Our Supreme Court remanded the case to us with direction to address the defendant's remaining claim, that action had been taken in the trial court in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay. Id., 125 n.2. The defendant...claims on appeal that the trial court improperly rendered judgment in violation of the stay. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")

AC35539 - Citimortgage, Inc. v. Rey ("This appeal calls upon the court to decide whether, in a residential foreclosure action in which the parties have participated in court-sponsored forbearance mediation and in which a final forbearance agreement has been reported to the court, a defendant may counterclaim for damages allegedly caused by the plaintiff's subsequent pursuit of the foreclosure complaint in an alleged breach of the forbearance agreement. Because, in the particular factual and procedural circumstances of this case, we answer that question in the affirmative, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35466 - Federal National Mortgage Assn. v. Bridgeport Portfolio, LLC ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred by including both default interest and a prepayment premium in its calculation of the mortgage debt. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35791 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tarzia ("The defendant...appeals from the entry of a judgment of strict foreclosure for the plaintiff.... In this appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the plaintiff has not stated a claim for strict foreclosure of the mortgage because it did not plead that it is the owner of the debt, and (2) the judgment of strict foreclosure was procedurally improper because the court's earlier entry of summary judgment as to liability on the note could only apply to his personal liability, and could not be the basis for a judgment of strict foreclosure. We disagree, and accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35266 - U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ugrin ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... The defendant claims that the court erred by failing to conduct an additional evidentiary hearing, and thereby improperly denied his motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35287 - East Windsor v. East Windsor Housing, Ltd. ("The plaintiff...appeals from the order of the trial court denying in large part its request for attorney's fees in conjunction with seven foreclosure actions. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the attorney's fees awarded by the court were unreasonable as a matter of law and fact. We conclude that the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the court to the plaintiff did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC18937 - Gagne v. Vaccaro ("The present action is the culmination of a disagreement between two attorneys that has lasted decades. The plaintiff... appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which concluded that General Statutes § 51-183c required Hon. Anthony V. DeMayo, judge trial referee, to recuse himself from presiding over a hearing regarding the reasonableness of attorney's fees. The Appellate Court determined that this conclusion was dispositive of the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of the defendant's other claims. We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that . . . § 51-183c required [Judge DeMayo] to recuse [him]self from presiding over the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees?' Gagne v. Vaccaro, 304 Conn. 907, 39 A.3d 1118 (2012). We do not reach this claim, or any of the defendant's alternative grounds for affirmance with respect to Judge DeMayo's recusal, however, because we conclude that these claims are moot. We therefore remand the case to the Appellate Court with direction to dismiss the appeal as to the recusal issue and to consider the defendant's remaining claims.")

AC34602 - Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. Muhammad ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale, rendered by the trial court, in favor of the plaintiff.... Shortly after this appeal was argued in the Appellate Court, the trial court, on February 3, 2014, issued an order approving the committee sale, deed and report. The defendant did not appeal from that order, and the time has expired for him to do so. On March 18, 2014, we issued an order, sua sponte, requiring the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefs addressing the following question: 'In light of the trial court's February 3, 2014 order approving the committee sale/deed/report, and no appeal having been taken therefrom, why is the appeal in AC 34602 not moot?' The plaintiff filed its brief arguing that the appeal is moot because no relief could be afforded to the defendant. The defendant has not filed a supplemental brief or any other response to our order. We conclude that the appeal is moot and, thus, should be dismissed.")

AC35149 - Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas DeGennaro ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure following the summary judgment rendered in favor of the named plaintiff.... The defendant claims that the trial court erred in (1) granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, and (2) rendering a judgment of strict foreclosure. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35559 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Georgitseas ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant makes three claims pertaining to the court’s reliance on a ‘drive-by’ or ‘exterior-only’ appraisal dated more than 120 days before the date of the judgment in its calculation of the subject property’s fair market value. We conclude that the defendant has failed to preserve any of his claims for appellate review, and we accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35253 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Strong ("The defendant...appeals from the summary judgment as to liability and the subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff...as trustee. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred because (1) it granted summary judgment even though there were genuine issues of material fact about the plaintiff's status as owner of the note and mortgage, which implicated the plaintiff's standing, and (2) it denied her request for an evidentiary hearing regarding the plaintiff's affidavit of debt, upon which it relied in granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment of strict foreclosure. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35157 - Pachaug Marina & Campground Assn., Inc. v. Pease ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to open and correct the judgment of strict foreclosure and to extend the sale date. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly denied their motion because part of the lien for unpaid assessments was extinguished by General Statutes § 47-258 (e). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motion. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35482 - Manning v. Feltman ("The plaintiff in this foreclosure action...appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants.... The court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the foreclosure action after determining that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to list the note and mortgage deed at issue in his foreclosure complaint as an asset in his 1995 bankruptcy petition. The court ruled that the note and mortgage remain the property of the bankruptcy estate, not the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss because (1) the court should have abstained from deciding bankruptcy law issues, stayed the case, and referred such issues to the Bankruptcy Court; (2) the defendants lacked standing to raise bankruptcy issues; and (3) the court should have substituted the bankruptcy trustee as a party plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35759 - Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC v. Alexandria Estates, LLC ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff...after remand by this court for a determination of priorities. See Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC v. Alexandria Estates, LLC, 136 Conn. App. 511, 48 A.3d 101 (2012). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) relied solely on two warranty deeds to support its determination that the plaintiff's mortgage had priority over the defendant's claimed interest in the subject property, (2) 'failed to allow' the plaintiff's counsel to testify with respect to the title search he had prepared in connection with the foreclosure action, and (3) 'followed an inappropriate directive from the Appellate Court' in the remand order. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35838 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Torres ("The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss of the self-represented defendant.... On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing, and subsequently erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss. We agree, and therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35354 - Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Russo ("In this foreclosure action, the self-represented defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff...to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale and denying his motion to open that judgment. He claims that the court abused its discretion in so doing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34726 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn ("The defendant...appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his motion to open the strict foreclosure action that was instituted against him by the plaintiff.... We conclude that the court had the jurisdiction and authority to open, and that it should have opened, the judgment of strict foreclosure after the running of the law day in order to effectuate the clear terms of its judgment, with which the plaintiff encumbrancer had failed to comply and then falsely certified that it had complied. Accordingly, given the unusual specific facts and circumstances of this case, including the omissions and falsification by the plaintiff constituting its noncompliance with the strict foreclosure judgment of the court, we reverse the judgment of the trial court denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the strict foreclosure action.")

AC35076 - Nikola v. 2938 Fairfield, LLC ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... The defendants claim that the court erred in (1) concluding that the plaintiff was the holder of the note and mortgage from Fairfield, (2) finding that the mortgage exception to the usury statute applied, and (3) finding the debt to be in excess of $140,000. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35340 - American Tax Funding, LLC v. Basher (This appeal from the trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure concerns the apportionment of moneys paid for past due real property taxes. On appeal, the defendant...claims that the court improperly (1) construed an agreement between the parties and (2) granted summary judgment as to his liability because there was a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the parties' agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.)


Foreclosure Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=199

January 2012 - December 2013 (reverse chronological order)

AC35050 - Citimortgage, Inc. v. Coolbeth ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure following the summary judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendants contend that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability and on the defendants' counterclaim. We disagree, and accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34495 - Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Munsill-Borden Mansion, LLC ("In this action on a cross complaint to recover amounts due on a promissory note, the defendants...appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the cross claim plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) excluded parol evidence and (2) applied certain provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), General Statutes § 42a-3-101 et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34773 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Perez ("The defendants in this residential mortgage foreclosure action...appeal from the trial court's reformation of the subject mortgage and from the judgment of strict foreclosure subsequently rendered on the reformed mortgage in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust mortgage loan pass-through certificates, series 2006-7. The defendants claim that the court abused its discretion by reforming the mortgage on the basis of a mutual mistake to include Shaw as a mortgagor, thus implicating her undivided one-half interest in the mortgaged property, despite the fact that Shaw was not a signatory to the mortgage and never had agreed to mortgage her interest in the subject property, and by foreclosing upon the improperly reformed mortgage. We conclude that the court lacked the authority to reform the mortgage as it did, and, therefore, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35014 - Banco Popular North America v. du’Glace, LLC ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant...a guarantor of the mortgage debt, appeals from the deficiency judgment rendered against him and the defendant mortgagor...by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff...in the amount of $281,910.42. Holt claims that, in ruling on the plaintiff's motion for a deficiency judgment, the court improperly admitted into evidence a 'restricted use' appraisal report and relied upon that same appraisal report in determining the fair market value of the subject property. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC34262 - Farmington Valley Recreational Park, Inc. v. Farmington Show Grounds, LLC ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants...appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure claiming that the court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to commence the action and (2) that the plaintiffs had proven and established the debt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC35189 - Industrial Mold & Tool, Inc. v. Zaleski ("This case concerns one plaintiff's struggle to foreclose on a judgment lien. The defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale. The issue before us is whether the court abused its discretion in so doing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34510 - Torrington Savings Bank Mortgage Servicing Co. v. Chance ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court approving the committee's report, deed, and sale of the defendant's foreclosed home. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court committed error by not conducting a hearing, sua sponte, to determine whether the plaintiff...had standing, as the holder of the note, at the time it instituted the foreclosure action. On the basis of the record before us, including the admissions of the defendant in his answer that the plaintiff had been assigned the note and mortgage on April 26, 2007; see Industrial Mold & Tool, Inc. v. Zaleski, 146 Conn. App. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2013); the foreclosure complaint and documents attached thereto, and the supporting affidavit and documents attached to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court committed error by not holding, sua sponte, a full evidentiary hearing on the uncontested issue of whether the plaintiff had standing to institute the foreclosure action.")

AC34595 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Khatun ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to open the judgment and extend the law day. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34438 - Absolute Plumbing & Heating, LLC v. Edelman ("This appeal arises from consolidated actions brought by subcontractors to foreclose on mechanic's liens placed on the defendant's property to secure the value of their labor and services on a home improvement project. The defendant...appeals from the trial court's judgment accepting a report by the attorney trial referee (referee) awarding damages, interest, and attorney's fees to the plaintiff subcontractors.... On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly adopted the referee's report because (1) it failed to consider the applicability of the Home Improvement Act (act), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., to the validity of the plaintiffs' liens, and (2) the evidence presented did not support either the referee's factual finding as to the contract price agreed to by the defendant and the general contractor or his finding that the construction work agreed to under the contract had been substantially completed. The defendant further claims that the trial court improperly awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33467 - Ed Lally & Associates, Inc. v. DSBNC, LLC ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff...following a court trial, for the foreclosure of two mechanic's liens, breach of contract and quantum meruit. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court (1) did not have subject matter jurisdiction to find in favor of the plaintiff on the foreclosure of its mechanic's liens because the mechanic's liens were invalid, (2) improperly found that the plaintiff had proven damages on the breach of contract count, (3) improperly found in favor of the plaintiff on the quantum meruit count because the court previously had found in favor of the plaintiff on the breach of contract count, (4) erred in its rulings on the defendants' amendments to their answer, special defenses and counterclaim, and (5) improperly ruled that evidence of the plaintiff's ethical violations was not relevant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC18885 - Citibank, N.A. v. Lindland ("The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court had authority to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale and related supplemental judgments after title had passed to the purchaser when a series of errors by the court and the parties caused the purchaser to buy a property that, unbeknownst to him but actually known by the second mortgagee, was in fact subject to a first mortgage that was to be foreclosed shortly thereafter. The defendant Robert Olsen, the purchaser, and the defendant 17 Ridge Road, LLC, a limited liability company in which Olsen has a 50 percent ownership interest, both of whom the trial court permitted to join this action, claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court lacked authority to open the judgments under the unique circumstances of the case. The plaintiff, Citibank, N.A., as trustee of SACO 2007-2, maintains that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court lacked authority to open the judgment of foreclosure and the supplemental judgments because title had vested in the purchaser. We reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

SC18775 - Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers ("In this certified appeal, the plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court improperly had failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to bring this action after the defendant...challenged the plaintiff's standing. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

AC34340 - Clem Martone Construction, LLC v. DePino (Mechanic's lien; "In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting its request for attorney's fees in which the court awarded an amount less than the plaintiff requested. The plaintiff claims that the court erred by applying the incorrect legal standard to determine the amount of attorney's fees due and, thus, improperly excluded from its award attorney's fees for the defense of the counterclaim filed by the defendants.... The defendants cross appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff. We agree with the plaintiff regarding its appeal and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $10,368.75. With respect to the defendants' cross appeal, we affirm the judgment of foreclosure by sale.")

AC33477 - Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Creed ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if it had subject matter jurisdiction after she raised the issue of the plaintiff's standing, and (2) neither the original plaintiff nor the substitute plaintiff had standing to bring the action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33968 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Eldon ("The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant.... On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion to open the judgment, motion to reargue and motion for permission to amend its responses to the defendant's request for admission because the denials were based on default admissions that were plainly false and because they represented a harsh, disproportionate discovery sanction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC19050, SC19051, SC19052 - J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Properties, LLC ("As the securitization of mortgage loans has become increasingly favored by financial lenders, and as arrangements for the administration of these loans have become increasingly complex, the relationship between the debtors/mortgagors and the owners of these debts has become more attenuated. Consequently, in foreclosure actions across the country on loans subject to these arrangements, challenges to the standing of parties other than the lender to bring such actions have been on the rise. Connecticut's appellate courts have never had occasion to address this type of challenge, until today. Specifically, we must determine whether a loan servicer for the owner and holder of a note and mortgage can have standing in its own right to institute a foreclosure action against the mortgagor as a transferee of the holder's rights under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), General Statutes §§ 42a-3-203 and 42a-3-301.

The defendants...appeal from the trial court's judgment ordering strict foreclosure of Signature’s property and a deficiency judgment against the defendants predicated on the standing of both the original plaintiff, loan servicer J.E. Robert Company, Inc. (J.E. Robert), and the substitute plaintiff, Shaw’s New London, LLC (Shaw's). Julian additionally appeals from the trial court's order granting Shaw's application for a prejudgment remedy. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that, under the facts of this case, J.E. Robert had standing to institute this foreclosure action in its own name and reject the defendants' additional claims. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34764 GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford ("The self-represented defendant in this residential mortgage foreclosure action...appeals following the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered against him in favor of the plaintiff.... The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint, (2) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on the foreclosure complaint, (3) denied his request to amend his answer, special defense and counterclaim and his motion to reargue that ruling and (4) rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure based on material misrepresentations by the plaintiff and without holding an evidentiary hearing as to the amount of the debt owed. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC34753 - Rees v. Villano ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly precluded them from presenting an expert witness. After reviewing the record and appellate briefs, we conclude that the defendants’ claim is without merit and that the court properly rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting new law days.")

AC33777 - TD Bank, N.A. v. M.J. Holdings, LLC ("The defendants...appeal from the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motions (1) to strike their special defenses and (2) for summary judgment. We reverse the judgment of the court.")

AC33857 - TD Bank, N.A. v. J & M Holdings, LLC ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff... The defendants claim that the court erred in (1) striking certain special defenses and (2) granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34702 - USA Bank v. Schulz ("The defendant in this foreclosure action...appeals to this court from the denial of his 'motion to open judgment and extend law day' dated May 25, 2012, which the trial court denied without opinion on May 29, 2013. Notwithstanding its title, the subject motion sought only to reargue the earlier motion of the plaintiff...for summary judgment as to liability only dated July 6, 2011, which the trial court previously granted, also without opinion, on October 20, 2011. The defendant claims that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, on the basis of which it later rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure as to a commercial property in Ridgefield on which he had given the plaintiff a mortgage on which he defaulted, because it ruled on that motion when he was unrepresented by counsel due to his lawyer's temporary suspension from the practice of law. The defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to open judgment so that he might reargue the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability with the assistance of new counsel. ")

AC33983 - People’s United Bank v. Bok ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... The defendants claim that the court improperly rendered the judgment of strict foreclosure based upon a default for failure to plead that was erroneously entered against them after they had filed a responsive pleading. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34632 - Citimortgage, Inc. v. Gaudiano ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court following the denial of his motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this foreclosure action brought by the plaintiff.... The defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had standing to bring the action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33920 - RKG Management, LLC v. Roswell Sedona Associates, Inc. ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure of a mechanic's lien rendered in favor of the plaintiff...specifically with respect to the court's conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a mechanic's lien in the amount of $40,130 for labor and materials supplied to property owned by the defendants. On appeal, the defendants claim that the judgment must be reversed because the court incorrectly deprived them of the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's key witness at trial and thereafter refused to grant the defendants' request that the witness' testimony be stricken. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33649 - Bank of New York v. Bell ("The plaintiff... appeals from the judgment of the trial court holding the plaintiff in contempt for its failure to comply with discovery orders issued in response to the discovery requests filed by the defendants.... On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court improperly held it in contempt because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, that the court lacked the authority to issue discovery orders requiring the plaintiff to turn over documents that belonged to another entity. We agree with the plaintiff's second claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC32318 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Gabriele ("The defendants...appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in rendering judgment of strict foreclosure because the plaintiff's motion for default, which the court granted, was filed prematurely. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33898 - Silicon Valley Bank v. Miracle Faith World Outreach, Inc. ("The issues presented in this appeal from a judgment on a promissory note and foreclosure of a mortgage relate to matters entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. The defendant...claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) admitting a copy of the promissory note and admitting screenshots detailing the transaction history of the subject loan, and (2) permitting the plaintiff...to open its case-in-chief to offer evidence of its attorney’s fees. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC33650 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bertrand ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff.... The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, (2) defaulted the defendant for failure to plead and (3) refused to accept the defendant’s answer and special defenses when he offered to file it with the court after he was defaulted at the hearing on the motion for judgment of strict foreclosure. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33977 - Bridgeport v. White Eagle’s Society of Brotherly Help, Inc. ("The defendant...appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court on its counterclaim brought against the plaintiff...to enforce a stipulated judgment rendered in a prior action. The defendant claims that the court improperly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact and granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the counterclaim was barred because the defendant had failed to avail itself of statutory remedies available pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-111 or 12-119. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33771 - Thompson Gardens West Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Masto ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying Deutsche's motion to open and vacate the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff...on an East Haven condominium unit then owned by the named defendant.... The controlling issue in this case is whether the trial court, pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15, properly concluded that, because service properly had been effectuated on...the mortgagee listed on the land records, in accordance with the statutory requirements, it did not have jurisdiction to grant Deutsche's motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure, filed nearly eight months after judgment had been rendered in this strict foreclosure action and nearly six months after title had vested in the association. We agree with the court that it was without jurisdiction to grant the motion, but conclude that because there was no practical relief available to Deutsche, the court should have dismissed the motion to open instead of denying it.")

AC33850 - Unifund CCR Partners v. Schaeppi ("The plaintiff...appeals from the denial by the trial court of its motion to open a judgment rendered in its favor. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court (1) improperly found that the judgment rendered in its favor was invalidly entered and, therefore, cannot be opened, and (2) erred in finding that an order for installment payments was not a judgment, and, therefore, could not be opened. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34139 - Moran v. Morneau ("The dispositive issue in this foreclosure action is whether a default judgment entered against the defendant...definitively established the lien priority order alleged in the amended complaint of the plaintiff.... Because we hold that the factual allegations in the complaint, even if true, did not, as a matter of law, establish that the plaintiff held the first priority, [the defendant's] default did not operate to reify the plaintiff's erroneous legal conclusions. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33339 E & M Custom Homes, LLC v. Negron (The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding for the defendants...on the plaintiff’s claim for foreclosure of its mechanic’s lien and finding against the plaintiff on the defendants’ counterclaim. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) awarded damages to the defendants on their counterclaim, (2) calculated the mechanic’s lien, (3) permitted an unregistered home improvement contractor to testify as an expert witness and (4) calculated the setoff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34022 - Brown v. McCue Mortgage Co. ("The self-represented plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief and an accounting as to a piece of real property located at 108 South Main Street in Brooklyn (property). The defendants, McCue Mortgage Company (McCue) and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (authority), hold the first and second mortgages, respectively, on the property. On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of claims. The plaintiff, however, failed to raise or to brief the issue on which the case was dismissed by the trial court, and therefore we decline to review the issues raised in his appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.")

AC33965 - PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Jean-Jacques ("The defendants . . . appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to open a foreclosure judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33027 - Hartford v. McKeever ("The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant...awarding him $195,909 in damages on his counterclaim to recoup moneys overpaid by him to the plaintiff and other prior holders of two notes secured by mortgages on his property in Hartford. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff, as the most recent assignee and current holder of the defendant's note, could be held liable to repay the defendant for sums he overpaid on the note, not only to itself but to other prior holders thereof. We agree with the plaintiff and thus reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33906 - New Alliance Bank v. Schaeppi ("The self-represented defendants...appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the substituted plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendants argue that the court improperly deprived them of the right to due process when it granted the motion to substitute First Niagara for the plaintiff, NewAlliance Bank, without holding an evidentiary hearing. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC33874 - JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winthrop Properties, LLC ("The guarantors claim on appeal that the court erred in striking their notice of defense and awarding a deficiency judgment because General Statutes § 49-1 barred the plaintiff from taking any further action to collect upon the obligation of the guarantors after the plaintiff failed to file a motion for a deficiency judgment within the thirty day time limit provided for in General Statutes § 49-14.")

AC33556 - Greco Construction v. Edelman ("The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendants... individually, and as executrix of the estate of Claudia Pearl, to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")

AC33294 - BHP Land Services, LLC v. Seymour ("The defendant . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff . . . . The defendant claims that the court improperly found that the plaintiff could recover on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.")

AC33637 - Sanzo v. Sanzo ("On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court (1) improperly modified its initial judgment in violation of their due process rights and (2) abused its discretion in ordering a foreclosure by sale instead of a strict foreclosure.")

AC33755 - MCC Funding, LLC v. Beverly Hills Suites, LLC ("On appeal, the defendants claim that the court abused its discretion in denying their request for a continuance to present their own appraisal report on the property.")

AC32780 - Selene Finance, L.P. v. Tornatore ("The defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to open and awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiff.")

AC33633 - Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. Brown ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the judgment should be vacated because of the mistaken placement of a foreclosure sign on his property prior to the judgment of foreclosure by sale. ")

AC33587 - Coach Run Condominium, Inc. v. Furniss ("The principal issue in this case is whether a condominium association has the right to enforce a statutory lien for unpaid common charges provided for by the Common Interest Ownership Act (act), General Statutes § 47-200 et seq., even if the association has substantially failed to perform its maintenance obligations to the defaulting condominium owner.")

AC32479 - Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC v. Alexandria Estates, LLC ("This case involves a determination of priorities of encumbrances in an action to foreclose an $880,000 mortgage brought by the plaintiff...against the defendants...which was heard by the court on a short calendar motion. The principal issue arises between the plaintiff and Neubig over his claimed entitlement to payment of the sum of $35,000 for each lot that might be developed on the mortgaged premises, which, by virtue of an agreement made between Neubig and Dale Construction 01, LLC (Dale Construction), was recorded on the land records."

AC32331 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Shivers (Foreclosure; "The sole issue before us...is whether the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability. The gravamen of the defendant’s argument is that the plaintifffailed to demonstrate that no material issues of fact existed."

AC31453 - Warner v. Brochendorff (Foreclosure; "The plaintiff appeals from the foreclosurejudgment, claiming that the court improperly permitted a collateral attack on the underlying judgment. The defendant cross appeals from the foreclosure judgment,claiming that the court improperly determined the amount of damages from the evidence submitted at trial. In particular, the defendant claims that the amount awarded by the court as attorney’s fees was excessive.")

AC33137 - Bank of America, N.A., Trustee v. Briarwood Connecticut, LLC (Foreclosure; "On appeal, Briarwood claims that the court improperly: (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without permitting Briarwood the opportunity to obtain limited discovery on its special defense of payment; and (2) pursuant to that special defense, failed to consider the plaintiff’s receipt of funds pursuant to the federal Troubled Assets Relief Program. See 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq.")

AC33725 - Kennedy Funding, Inc. v. Greenwich Landing, LLC (Foreclosure; "In RMS Residential Properties, LLC v.Miller, 303 Conn. 224, 228–33, 32 A.3d 307 (2011), ourSupreme Court held that, pursuant to General Statutes § 49-17, the holder of a negotiable promissory note secured by a mortgage has standing to bring a foreclosure action against the maker of the note, even before assignment of the mortgage to the holder. The principal issue in this appeal is whether, as the trial court held,such a holder has standing to bring a foreclosure action even if the holder is described in the promissory note as an agent for a number of identified principals

AC32568 - Ulster Savings Bank v. 28 Brynwood Lane, Ltd. (Foreclosure; "On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted summary judgment as to liability on the foreclosure complaint in favor of the plaintiff because the defendant’s special defenses alleging lack of standing, unclean hands and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing raised triable issues of fact and (2) granted summary judgment as amatter of law on the defendant’s counterclaim because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42- 110a et seq.")

AC33063 - MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Egziabher (Foreclosure; "On appeal, the defendantclaims that, although the court reduced the amount of the deficiency claimed by the plaintiff, the court erred by declining to reduce the deficiency judgment further. She claims that there was an inordinately long delay between the institution of the action and the deficiency judgment, and that during that time interest accumulated. The defendant claims, therefore, that the end result was inequitable.")

AC32719 - Jancewicz v. 1721, LLC (Foreclosure; "The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) awarded the excess insurance proceeds to the defendants despite language in the mortgage directing that such proceeds be paid to the plaintiffs and (2) failed to award them attorney’s fees on the defendants’ unsuccessful counterclaim.")

AC33146Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. Walpuck (Mortgage foreclosure; foreclosure by sale; "In this foreclosure action the defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the confirmation of the sale of the foreclosed property. The defendant claims that the plaintiff, Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., did not have standing to take title to the property because, having been acquired by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., prior to the court’s approval of the sale, the plaintiff did not exist at that time.")

AC33434 - Patriot National Bank v. Braverman (Foreclosures; motion to reopen; PB § 61-1; "On appeal, the defendant claims that his motion to reopen challenging the amount of the mortgage debt required the court to hold a hearing to test the accuracy of an affidavit it relied on to calculate the debt in the judgment of foreclosure by sale.")

AC33236 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. DelMastro (Foreclosure; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court erred by failing to apply the doctrine of equitable subrogation, (2) the court erred by failing to apply general equitable principles in order to find that the plaintiff’s mortgage was prior in right to the mortgage of the defendant Mary Lou DelMastro and (3) Mary Lou DelMastro’s mortgage was void for lack of consideration.")

AC32639 - TD Banknorth, N.A. v. White Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc. (Foreclosure by sale; promissory note; "The defendant argues that the court improperly denied his motion to open the judgment, failed to consider certain facts when rendering the judgment of strict foreclosure and erred by failing to interpret his pleadings as a writ of audita querela.")

SC18547 - Hudson Valley Bank v. Kissel (Foreclosure; "This appeal concerns the distribution of the surplus proceeds from a foreclosure sale of property encumbered by multiple successive mortgages obtained through fraud...claims that the trial court: (1)improperly granted First American’s motion to intervene in the action; (2) applied an improper standard of review in granting relief pursuant to First American’s motion to reargue the trial court’s decision determining the priorities of the parties; and (3) improperly concluded, pursuant to an equitable distribution theory, that First American was entitled to receive all of the remaining funds from the foreclosure sale. First American argues that the trial court’s judgment may be upheld on the alternate ground that, because First American’s mortgage was recorded prior in time to Stewart Title’s mortgage, it was entitled to all of the surplus proceeds on deposit pursuant to the first in time, first in right rule.")

AC32549 - Carmichael v. Stonkus (Foreclosure; "The named defendant ...argues that the court abused its discretion in severing the cross complaint and that the court impeded hisappeal rights. Carmichael Brushie argues, however, that this court should decline to review any of the defendant’s claims on the grounds that the defendant failed to provide an adequate record for review and inadequately briefed his claims.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=36

AC37754 - Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Genesis Ltd. Partnership ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant Professional Services Group, Inc., appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the motion filed by the plaintiff, Bellmore Partners, Inc., to dismiss the defendant's cross claim. The defendant claims that the court erred by granting the plaintiff's motion to dismiss because it improperly concluded that the defendant lacked standing. We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=202

November 2007 - December 2011 (reverse chronological order)

AC32701 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Iaquessa (Foreclosure; unpreserved due process claim; "...appeal from the judgment of the trial court approving the committee’s sale of certain real property in Branford. Their sole claim is that the court violated their right to due process in so doing.")

AC32547 - JP Morgan Chase Bank, Trustee v. Rodrigues (Foreclosure by Sale; "On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly struck two of their special defenses.")

AC32580 - Congress Street Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Anderson (Foreclosure, statutory lien;nonpayment of common charges and fine; "On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment regarding the imposition of fines. The defendant claims, as well, that his special defense of equitable estoppel was properly before the court and created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff validly levied fines against him.")

SC18746 - RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller (Foreclosure; summary judgment; standing;"The principal issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes §49-17 confers standing on a holder of a promissory note to foreclose a mortgage.")

AC32029 - Twin Oaks Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Jones ("The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiff was negligent and (2) calculated the amount of damages.")

AC32723 - Citibank, N.A. v. Lindland ("This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court had the authority to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale after title to the real property had been conveyed to the successful bidder, despite irregularities in the process....On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) opened the judgment of foreclosure because it lacked authority to do so and (2) granted the motions to intervene as party defendants filed by Olsen and 17 Ridge Road, LLC.")

AC30950 - J & E Investment Co., LLC v. Athan ("The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendant...to open and to set aside the stipulated judgment of strict foreclosure and the court's determination that the defendant's mortgage had priority over the plaintiff's mortgage. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) opened the judgment pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 49-15 despite the fact that title previously had vested in the plaintiff and (2) determined that the defendant's mortgage encumbered the property and was senior to the plaintiff's mortgage.")

AC32007 - Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cornelius ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to dismiss, (2) rejected his tender of payment as insufficient, (3) determined the amount of the debt, (4) considered the parties' motions in the wrong order and (5) imposed costs for filing the motion to open prior to placing it on the motion calendar.")

AC32681 - JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Gianopoulos ("The self-represented defendant...appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure, as opened and modified, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.... She claims that during a hearing on the plaintiff's motion to open the judgment for the purpose of setting new law days, when attorney Stuart Ratner identified himself as representing 'the defendant,' the court abused its discretion by failing to inquire whether Ratner represented her interests as well as those of Dean A. Gianopoulos, the named defendant. The plaintiff maintains that, in light of the procedural history of this case and the defendant's failure to provide any record in support of her claim on appeal, this appeal was taken solely for the purpose of delay.")

AC32621 - Water Pollution Control Authority v. Johnson ("Pursuant to General Statutes § 49-30, the rights of a purchaser acquiring title at a foreclosure sale are governed by the rule of caveat emptor. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. White, 278 Conn. 219, 235, 896 A.2d 797 (2006). In this case, in accordance with § 49-30, the property that a purchaser bought at a foreclosure sale previously had been held to be subject to a mortgage lien that had been omitted in the documentation of the foreclosure proceedings. The only issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the purchaser's consequent motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment.")

AC32560 - PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Cameron ("The pro se defendant...appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting his motion to dismiss a foreclosure action filed by the plaintiff...for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly addressed the merits of his claim that the promissory note was unenforceable.")

AC31573 - JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Zubretsky ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) not conducting an evidentiary hearing on her homestead exemption claim and (2) concluding that the homestead exemption is not available to protect the proceeds of a voluntary sale from a judgment lien creditor.")

AC32124 - HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Navin ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by granting summary judgment because (1) the plaintiff was not the owner of the promissory note and mortgage at the time that it commenced the foreclosure action and thus lacked standing, (2) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiff possessed the assignment of the promissory note and mortgage at the time that it commenced the foreclosure action and (3) the plaintiff was not the holder or owner of the promissory note and mortgage at the time it commenced the action.")

AC31647 - Highgate Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Miller ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court did not possess the authority to open the judgment because the title to the foreclosed property had become absolute in the plaintiff and, thus, the judgment was opened improperly.")

AC31699 - Moran v. Morneau ("In this foreclosure action, the court rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale and, prior to either the sale or the rendering of a supplemental judgment, determined the parties’ priorities with respect to the subject property. The sole issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the trial court’s determination of priorities is an appealable final judgment.")

SC18074 - FCM Group, Inc. v. Miller ("On appeal, the defendants challenge all aspects of the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff except that portion of the judgment awarding the plaintiff lost profit in the amount of $3660.67. Specifically, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly accepted the recommendations of the attorney trial referee that (1) Cheryl Miller was liable for breach of contract even though she was not a party to the contract, (2) the plaintiff was entitled to delay damages under the terms of the parties’ contract, and (3) the plaintiff was entitled to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien in the amount of $30,761.98. The defendants further claim that the trial court improperly (1) awarded the plaintiff the remaining balance due under the parties’ contract, (2) awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees under § 52-249 (a), and (3) failed to award them attorney’s fees under § 49-8 (c) in connection with their successful challenge to a second mechanic’s lien in the amount $343,351.47. The plaintiff claims in its cross appeal that the trial court improperly accepted the attorney trial referee’s determination that the $343,351.47 mechanic’s lien was invalid and, therefore, improperly awarded the defendants $5000 in damages under § 49-8 (c).")

AC32032 - Falls Mill of Vernon Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Sudsbury ("The defendant mortgage lender...appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to open a judgment of strict foreclosure. The defendant contends that the court improperly concluded that it lacked authority to open that judgment.")

AC32300 - Park National Bank v. 3333 Main, LLC ("The issue presented in this appeal is whether the court properly determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hospitality breached the indemnification provision of the service contract between it and Exit 88.")

AC31890 - Cadle Co. v. Clark ("On appeal, Maureen Clark claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to open because (1) the plaintiff allegedly did not properly serve several of the parties cited in as defendants and (2) her property was incorrectly valued because of alleged misrepresentations made by the plaintiff.")

SC18597, SC18598 - Connecticut National Bank v. Rehab Associates ("These appeals arise from a foreclosure action and subsequent deficiency judgment against the defendants... relating to a mortgage loan to Rehab that had been guaranteed by Hallahan and Ermler. The defendants now appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying Hallahan’s motion to determine that the deficiency judgment was fully or, alternatively, partially satisfied as a result of a settlement agreement (agreement) between Ermler and Shawmut Bank Connecticut, N.A. (Shawmut), the successor in interest of the original plaintiff, Connecticut National Bank. On appeal, the defendants assert that the trial court improperly concluded that the agreement did not release Hallahan from his obligation to pay the balance of the deficiency judgment.")

AC30474 - Unifund CCR Partners v. Schaeppi ("The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court improperly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly (1) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment because it lacked the requisite memorandum of law accompanying it pursuant to Practice Book § 11-10 and (2) concluded that the judgment lien that formed the basis of the foreclosure action was invalid because it sought to secure a money judgment of no amount.")

AC30982 - Waterview Site Services, Inc. v. Pay Day, Inc. ("This appeal arises from a business disagreement between the plaintiff, Waterview Site Services, Inc., and the defendant, Pay Day, Inc. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly found that (1) the defendant consented to the work that the plaintiff performed, (2) the mechanic's lien was filed in a timely manner and (3) the defendant was unjustly enriched in the amount of $224,959.24. The plaintiff filed a cross appeal challenging the court's decision that, in calculating the unjust enrichment award, it would credit the defendant for an amount equal to the fair rental value owed by the plaintiff for occupying the land.")

AC31456 - Danzig v. PDPA, Inc. ("On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly: (1) rendered summary judgment against them, as guarantors, despite the plaintiff's having withdrawn the complaint as to them, (2) granted the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and for foreclosure despite the plaintiff's noncompliance with Practice Book § 17-44, (3) did not require the plaintiff's appraiser to testify and (4) exhibited judicial bias against Ahmed and all pro se parties in general.")

AC31457 - Danzig v. PDPA, Inc. ("On appeal, PDPA claims that the court improperly refused to allow it the opportunity to plead in response to the plaintiff's amended complaint. Additionally, the plaintiff raises questions about PDPA's standing and whether the appeal has been taken from a final judgment.")

AC30145 - Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if it had subject matter jurisdiction, (2) failed to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and (3) rendered judgment in violation of a bankruptcy stay.")

AC31489 - LaSalle Bank, N.A. Trustee v. Randall ("The defendant claims that the court improperly approved the sale on the motion of the committee of sale because the foreclosing lender, the substitute plaintiff, LaSalle Bank, N.A., Trustee, submitted an inflated appraisal that discouraged other bidders and allowed the plaintiff to purchase the property for a bid price that was inadequate and inequitable.")

AC31098 - Myrtle Mews Assn., Inc. v. Bordes ("The defendant claims that the court erred in denying its motion to open because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it as a result of insufficiency of process and insufficient service of process, thus rendering the judgment void.")

AC31471 - Rockville Bank v. Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) ordered the sale in light of evidence that the defendant had complied with an agreement (agreement) entered into with the plaintiff, Rockville Bank, in satisfaction of the mortgage, and (2) approved the sale despite that compliance and evidence that the committee improperly administered the sale.")

SC18393 - Lestorti v. DeLeo ("On appeal to this court, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court's decision (1) conflicts with well established Connecticut law concerning the rights of coguarantors to contribution, and (2) is improperly based on an assumption of a fact that is not part of the record.")

AC30911 - LaSalle Bank, National Assn. v. Bialobrzeski ("On appeal, the defendant claims that it was improper for the trial court to deny his motion to dismiss the action because the plaintiff lacked standing.")


AC29884 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bialobrzeski ("In this foreclosure action, the pro se defendant, Paul Bialobrzeski, claims that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action because it was not in possession of the subject note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced.")

AC30802 - Daddario & Sons, Inc. v. Shelansky ("The defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) determined that the plaintiff had standing to bring this action, (2) determined that the plaintiff's delay in foreclosing the mortgage did not indicate an intent to abandon the mortgage or bar its action under the doctrine of laches, (3) failed to find that the defendants were under duress when they signed the subject note and mortgage and that the mortgage transaction was unconscionable and (4) failed to find that the plaintiff had unclean hands and committed fraud in its dealings with them.")

AC30059 - Trumbull v. Palmer ("The pro se defendant Helene B. Knopick and the would-be intervenor, Linda A. Palmer, appeal from the judgment of the trial court setting a new sale date and denying their motion to open and vacate the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Trumbull, and the court's denial of Palmer's motions to intervene. The issues on appeal are whether the court abused its discretion by denying (1) Palmer's motions to intervene in her individual and fiduciary capacities, and (2) the motion to open and vacate the judgment.")

AC30530 - David M. Somers & Associates, P.C. v. Kendall ("The appellants claim that the court improperly (1) held Somers in his individual capacity liable for damages and (2) failed to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel.")

AC29874 - LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Lynch ("On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in awarding (1) interest on the principal amount they owed under the promissory note and (2) attorney's fees to the plaintiff under the note. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in calculating the amount of (1) principal debt due under the note and (2) attorney's fees under the note.")

AC30796 - Dreambuilders Construction, Inc. v. Diamond ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court's (1) order of a strict foreclosure instead of a foreclosure by sale was improper, (2) finding that there was a contract between her and the plaintiff was clearly erroneous, (3) finding of the value of the services and material furnished to support the mechanic's lien was clearly erroneous, (4) finding that she could not avail herself of the protection of the Home Improvement Act (act); General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; because she invoked it in bad faith was clearly erroneous and (5) finding that a general release she executed in favor of the plaintiff, which included a release of her counterclaim, also was a release of her defenses was improper.")

AC31061 - Moasser v. Becker ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly interpreted the remand as an order that the fees were mandated, (2) improperly awarded fees against a party whose interest in the subject real property was not foreclosed, (3) improperly awarded fees pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-350f and 52-400c and (4) erred in its calculation of the fees.")

Bank of New York v. Bell ("This petition for review, brought pursuant to General Statutes § 51-164x (c) and Practice Book § 77-1, requires us to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by sealing certain documents in the underlying foreclosure action. The pro se petitioner, Johnathan Bell, alleges in his brief that, by sealing the documents at issue, the court (1) denied him due process by failing to follow the relevant rules of practice, and (2) abused its discretion because (a) the respondent, The Bank of New York, as trustee of BS ALT A 2005-9, waived its right to have the documents sealed and (b) the court's factual findings do not support its legal conclusions.")

AC30728 - Savings Bank of Danbury v. Karam ("On appeal, Beaver Street, LLC, claims that the court improperly marshaled the assets and ordered the properties to be foreclosed in a manner that is inequitable.")

AC31301 - Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere ("The defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had standing to bring the foreclosure action. Specifically, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the plaintiff was a valid assignee of the mortgage securing the defendant's promissory note to BNC Mortgage, Inc., the plaintiff's predecessor in interest and (2) the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust (SAIL), the entity for which the plaintiff is trustee, was a valid express trust as required by General Statutes § 52-106.")

Ruggiero v. Pellicci SC18399 (Foreclosure; "...[D]efendants contend that the trial court improperly accepted the referee’s reports because the referee had abused his discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for permission to amend their counterclaims, because: (1) the law of the case doctrine obligated the referee to grant the motion since the trial court already had granted that same relief; and (2) the plaintiff would not have been prejudiced by the granting of the motion since no additional evidence was necessary, and the motion was made to conform the pleadings to the facts adduced during the trial.")


AC30427 - Gagne v. Vaccaro ("On appeal, the defendant claims that §52-249 does not authorize appellate attorney's fees, and, even if it does, the amount of fees awarded was unreasonable.")


AC28286 - Sovereign Bank v. Licata (Foreclosure; “The substitute plaintiff, Seven Oaks Partners, LP (Seven Oaks), appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury verdict, in favor of the defendant…on her counterclaim alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and negligent misrepresentation. Seven Oaks claims that the court improperly failed to grant its motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the counts of the defendant’s counterclaim alleging a violation of CUTPA and negligent misrepresentation.”)


AC29642 - Byars v. Berg (Collateral Estoppel; “…[T]he plaintiff filed a revised complaint in the present action, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation. Essentially, the plaintiff alleged that because it was not legally constituted, the association and its various agents, including the defendants, lacked the authority either to enter into legally binding contracts or to take legal action on behalf of the association. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered harm from the actions of the defendants that resulted in the association successfully having foreclosed liens against his property.”)

AC29058 - Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Lax ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants...appeal from the trial court’s partial judgment rendered against them after the court granted the motion filed by the substitute plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), to strike their counterclaim.")

AC29012 - Centimark Corp. v. Village Manor Associates Ltd. Partnership ("On appeal, Centimark claims that the court improperly (1) found in favor of Village Manor on Village Manor’s claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (2) assessed damages on certain counts of Village Manor’s counterclaim.")

AC29578 - Lestorti v. DeLeo ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment the trial court rendered following its granting of the motion of the plaintiff...to strike the defendant’s counterclaim for equitable contribution.")

AC29916 - Oronoque Shores Condominium Assn. No. 1, Inc. v. Smulley ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) both special assessments were incorrectly apportioned, thereby rendering them invalid, (2) notice of the special litigation assessment was improperly published and (3) because the special assessment liens were invalid, the association was not a prevailing party and, therefore, not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.")

    AC29131 - Antonino v. Johnson ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) determined that written notice was not a prerequisite of the foreclosure action and (2) granted the plaintiffs’ motion for the appointment of a receiver of rents.")

    AC28991 - First Connecticut Capital, LLC v. Homes of Westport, LLC("This is a foreclosure appeal about a committee sale conducted during the pendency of an appellate stay. The defendant Homes of Westport, LLC, challenges the propriety of the judgment of the trial court approving the committee sale of certain real property in Westport.")

    PNC Bank, N.A. v. Kelepecz - SC18129 (Mortgage foreclosure; determination of priorities between subsequent encumbrancers of mortgaged property; supplemental judgment; whether trial court properly determined that judgment lien recorded by one encumbrancer was valid where lien certificate failed to set forth original amount of judgment secured by lien as required by statute (§ 52-380a [a]); plenary review of validity of judgment lien based on application of § 52-380a (a); claim that judgment lien holder failed to give statutory (§ 52-351a) notice to defendant judgment debtor; whether subsequent encumbrancer had standing to assert claim for previous encumbrancer's failure to comply with notice requirement; standing and aggrievement, discussed.)

      AC29428 - Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Matschke (“In this foreclosure action, the defendants, Arthur Matschke and Elaine Matschke, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale.”)


      AC27491 - Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Book ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Ethan Book, Jr., appeals from the supplemental judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the lienor defendant...This is the second appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the trial court in this case. In the first appeal, this court noted the "tortuous" and "labyrinthine" "factual and procedural history" of the case...")


      Argent Mortgage Co., LLC v. Huertas- SC18002 (Mortgages; motion to open judgment of strict foreclosure; whether trial court correctly concluded that foreclosed property of defendant, who was incarcerated when service was made at that property, constituted her 'usual place of abode' within meaning of statute (§ 52-57 [a]) governing, inter alia, abode service; whether trial court had personal jurisdiction over defendant; whether defendant's motion to open was moot because it was filed after title to property had vested in plaintiff mortgagee)

      Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. BFA Ltd. Partnership - SC18017 (Contracts; interpretation of conflicting language concerning duration of indemnity obligation in environmental indemnity agreement and subsequent reaffirmation of agreement; whether defendants' indemnification obligation was not extinguished by foreclosure because the reaffirmation of the indemnity agreement was a ratification of the indemnity agreement that incorporated its durational terms).

      White Sands Beach Association, Inc. v. Bombaci - SC17904 (Tax lien foreclosure; municipalities; whether plaintiff's failure to comply strictly with procedures dictated by enabling act rendered annexation of defendants' property ineffective; whether claim that property was wrongfully assessed was barred by laches).

      Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade - SC17848, SC17849 [docket summary - Mechanic's Liens; Foreclosure; Recovery for Materials Furnished or Services Rendered under General Statutes § 49-33 (a); Whether Finding of Substantial Performance is Required in Order to Recover on Mechanic's Lien Based on Contract Price; Whether Complaint was Properly Amended After Trial.]

      Deutche Bank National Trust Co. v. Angle - SC17657 (Foreclosure; application for protection from foreclosure and for restructuring of debt pursuant to homeowner protection statute ( §49-31d et seq.); challenge to state agency regulation ( §49-31j-4) as exceeding statutory authority conferred on banking commissioner; inadequate record for review; purpose of motion for articulation, discussed.).


      1