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 Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2981

AC39426 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn ("The defendant . . . appeals, specifically pursuant to Practice Book § 61-2, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff . . . as trustee, on the defendant's second amended counterclaim. In his appellate brief, the defendant also claims to be appealing from the court's order striking his amended special defenses. We dismiss the appeal as to the striking of the special defenses, and we affirm the judgment in all other respects.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2969

AC38934 - Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Condron ("The defendants . . . appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly rendered judgment of strict foreclosure because (1) the plaintiff failed to satisfy a contractual condition precedent to foreclosure, namely, compliance with the requirement of notification by mail specified in the mortgage deed; (2) the plaintiff failed to satisfy a statutory condition precedent, as required by the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (mortgage program) pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 8-265ee (a); and (3) the plaintiff lacked the authority to foreclose. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the action.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2955

AC39836 - GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Demelis ("The defendant Courtney Demelis appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Ditech Financial, LLC (Ditech). The defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by: (1) denying her motion to dismiss for the original plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the court; (2) denying her motion to dismiss based on the original plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case with reasonable diligence; and (3) denying her postjudgment motion for articulation, reconsideration and/or reargument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2944

AC38654 - Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Park City Sports, LLC ("The defendants, Park City Sports, LLC (Park City) and Robert P. Carter, appeal from the trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the foreclosure action due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with a standing order of the Superior Court, (2) improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, (3) improperly determined that the defendants’ special defenses were legally insufficient, and (4) improperly denied Carter's petition to participate in the foreclosure mediation program. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39320 - Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Mollo ("The defendant, Clifford W. Mollo, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. The defendant sets forth five claims that may be distilled as follows: (1) the judgment of strict foreclosure was improper because the court lacked authority to render summary judgment as to liability on the note and mortgage, and (2) the trial court erroneously determined that his special defenses and counterclaim were legally insufficient and/or failed to establish any genuine issue of material fact. Specifically, the defendant's first claim is that procedurally, the court lacked authority to grant summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to file any motion or memorandum of law attacking the legal sufficiency of his special defenses or counterclaim and failed to submit any competent evidence to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the issues raised in them. With respect to the second claim, the defendant argues that the court's decision granting summary judgment as to liability in favor of the plaintiff was clearly erroneous in that he presented uncontroverted evidence that demonstrated that genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to his special defenses of unclean hands, fraudulent inducement and equitable estoppel, and his counterclaim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. In addition, the defendant claims that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any defect in pleading his unclean hands defense and the CUTPA counterclaim could not be cured by repleading. We agree with the defendant that the court lacked authority to grant the motion for summary judgment as to liability because the plaintiff failed to file any motion or memorandum of law attacking the legal sufficiency of the special defenses and failed to submit any competent evidence to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the issues raised in them. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment rendered by the trial court on the plaintiff's complaint. In light of our conclusion that the court did not render a final judgment with respect to the defendant's counterclaim, we dismiss the portion of the appeal challenging the purported judgment on the counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See General Statutes § 52-263; Practice Book § 61-4; State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 30, 463 A.2d 566 (1983).")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1898

AC39988 - Cliff's Auto Body, Inc. v. Grenier ("The defendant, Carl M. Grenier, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff Basley Holdings, Inc. The defendant's principal claim on appeal is that it was improper for the court, Hon. Robert C. Leuba, judge trial referee, to deny his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1888

AC39520 - Stratek Plastics, Ltd. v. Ibar ("In this action for the foreclosure of a judgment lien, the defendant, Jean Pierre Ibar, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for attorney's fees filed by the plaintiff, Stratek Plastics, Ltd. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in awarding attorney's fees because (1) there had been no hearing as to the form of the judgment or the limitation of time for redemption as required by General Statutes § 52-249 (a); and (2) the plaintiff failed to present a statement of the fees requested and services rendered at the time of the trial. We disagree that the award of attorney's fees was improper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=858

AC38914 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Christophersen ("The defendant Bonnie L. Christophersen appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, US Bank National Association, as Trustee of Maiden Lane Asset-Backed Securities I Trust 2008-1. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action, (2) the court improperly failed to consider the defendant’s concerns regarding the amount of debt, (3) the court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a continuance, and (4) the court abused its discretion in ordering a judgment of strict foreclosure rather than a foreclosure by sale. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39542 - Valley National Bank v. Private Transerve, LLC ("In this action seeking, inter alia, to enforce a personal guarantee of a mortgage note, the defendants John Tartaglia and Linda Tartaglia, against whom summary judgment as to liability only was rendered, appeal following a hearing in damages from the court’s award of $967,467.59 in favor of the plaintiff, Valley National Bank. On appeal, the defendants argue that the court improperly (1) denied their motion to dismiss the action, in which they alleged that the plaintiff was not the owner of the debt at the time the action was commenced and, thus, lacked standing to prosecute the action; (2) granted summary judgment as to liability only despite the defendants’ insistence that genuine issues of material facts existed regarding the plaintiff’s ownership of the debt; (3) permitted the plaintiff to amend the complaint after summary judgment despite the defendants’ contention that the amendment added a new cause of action; and (4) made several evidentiary rulings against the defendants at the hearing in damages. We are not persuaded by the defendants’ claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=800

AC39191 - Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Scroggin ("The defendant, Daniel J. Scroggin also known as Daniel F. Scroggin also known as Daniel Scroggin, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, AJX Mortgage Trust 1, a Delaware Trust, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, F.S.B., Trustee. The defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment of strict foreclosure because (1) the judgment was based upon a default for failure to plead in response to the original complaint, but the plaintiff's predecessor in this action, thereafter, had significantly amended the pleadings and added additional parties to the action, and (2) by operation of General Statutes § 52-121 (a), he was entitled to, and did, file an answer prior to the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for judgment. We agree with the defendant's first claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to that court for further proceedings.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=770

AC38712 - GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford ("The self-represented defendant in this residential mortgage foreclosure action, Eric M. Ford, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 (Wells Fargo), to open a judgment of strict foreclosure and to extend the law days, and denying the defendant's motion to open the judgment. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 790, 190 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2015), the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to open and denying his motion to open; and (2) the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action. 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=747

AC40186 - Sovereign Bank v. Licata ("In this protracted foreclosure matter, the defendant Cynthia Licata appeals following the trial court's denial of her motion asking the court to clarify the 'status' of a judgment of strict foreclosure that was rendered orally in open court, more than ten years earlier, and from the trial court's order making copies of the transcripts of the relevant underlying proceedings a part of the court file. The plaintiff Seven Oaks Partners, LP, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal is moot and the decisions from which the defendant appealed do not constitute appealable final judgments. The defendant opposes the motion to dismiss. Because we agree that there is no practical relief that can be afforded to the defendant in this matter due to the fact that title to the property at issue has long since passed unconditionally to the plaintiff, we grant the plaintiff's motion and dismiss the appeal as moot.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=726

AC39219 - U.S. Bank National Assn., Trustee v. Blowers ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Mitchell Piper, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of the First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FF10. On appeal, Piper claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ special defenses and counterclaims. Specifically, he contends that the court improperly required the special defenses to directly relate to and the counterclaims to have a sufficient nexus to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note and mortgage. Instead, Piper argues, the court should have applied a ‘straightforward version of the transaction test with allowances for equitable considerations’ to both the special defenses and counterclaims. Additionally, Piper claims that even if the court did not err in applying the making, validity, or enforcement requirement, the counterclaims and special defenses should have survived a motion to strike under a broad reading of the term ‘enforcement.’ Finally, Piper claims that the court erred in its determinations that no binding modification to the defendants’ loan existed, that, if such modification existed, the defendants defaulted on the loan, and that all of the plaintiff’s alleged misconduct took place during foreclosure mediation. We disagree with Piper contentions 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=707

AC38970Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee v. Mauro ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants, Jeffrey J. Mauro and Renee A. Mauro, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court, Aurigemma, J., in favor of the plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon, on: the plaintiff's claim for strict foreclosure as to the defendants' mortgaged property in Killingworth, Connecticut; and the defendants' counterclaims against the plaintiff, seeking damages and equitable relief based upon alleged misrepresentations to them and other alleged misdealings with them concerning the note and mortgage here at issue, both by the plaintiff and by the original lender, America's Wholesale Lender (AWL), which was the plaintiff's predecessor in interest to the note and mortgage. As to the plaintiff's claim for strict foreclosure, the defendants argue that the court erred in basing its judgment for the plaintiff upon its prior, erroneous decision rendering summary judgment for the plaintiff as to the defendants' liability for foreclosure in this action, assertedly without sufficient evidence to establish the absence of any genuine issues of material fact on that issue. As to their counterclaims against the plaintiff, the defendants argue that, to the extent that such counterclaims are based upon the plaintiff's own alleged misdealings with them rather than those of AWL, the court erred in rendering summary judgment for the plaintiff by: (1) ruling that such counterclaims, so narrowed, were not properly pleaded in this action because they have no reasonable nexus to the making, validity, or enforcement of the subject note and mortgage; (2) ruling that one such counterclaim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) failing to follow the prior ruling of a different judicial authority, in partially denying a motion to strike, that certain such counterclaims were legally sufficient to state claims upon which relief could be granted. We disagree with the defendants on each of their claims, and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=691

AC38736 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants Roger Essaghof and Katherine Marr-Essaghof appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, and from the court's entry of a posttrial financial order. The defendants claim that the court (1) erred in rejecting their special defenses of fraudulent inducement and unclean hands, and (2) abused its discretion in ordering them to reimburse the plaintiff for property taxes paid by the plaintiff during the pendency of this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39315 - Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Speer ("The plaintiff in error, Edward Bona, brings this writ of error to challenge the decisions of the trial court granting the motions of the defendant in error, Seaport Capital Partners, LLC (Seaport), for order of payment, and denying Bona's motions to reargue the order of payment. Bona claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) improperly granted Seaport's motions for order of payment, and (3) improperly denied Bona's motions to reargue. We disagree with Bona and, accordingly, dismiss the writ of error.")

  • AC39315 - Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Spear (see Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Speer)
  • AC39315- Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. 76 – 78 Truman Street, LLC (see Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Speer)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=688

AC30037 - Citimortgage, Inc. v. Tanasi ("The defendants, Richard Tanasi and Athanasula S. Casberg Tanasi, appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the court in favor of the plaintiff, CitiMortgage, Inc. The defendants claim that the court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the foreclosure action because the plaintiff (1) lacked standing to commence foreclosure proceedings, (2) improperly relied on a document as a basis for standing, and (3) committed fraud warranting dismissal of the action with prejudice. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=655

AC38960 - Financial Freedom Acquisition, LLC v. Griffin ("In this action to foreclose a reverse mortgage, the defendants, Ann T. Griffin, in her representative capacity as executrix of the estate of Angela C. Griffin, and Ann T. Griffin, in her individual capacity, appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, OneWest Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in (1) concluding that the substitute plaintiff established a prima facie case of foreclosure and (2) rejecting their special defense and counterclaim sounding in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=625

AC38176 - Rockstone Capital, LLC v. Sanzo (Foreclosure; homestead exemption statute (§ 52-352b [t]); amendment of complaint to foreclose mortgage instead of judgment liens; jurisdiction to hear appealable final judgment; "The plaintiff, Rockstone Capital, LLC, appeals and the defendants, John Sanzo and Maria Sanzo, cross appeal from the judgment of the trial court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in not foreclosing its mortgage on the defendants' property and in applying the homestead exemption to its judgment liens, for which foreclosure was not sought. In their cross appeal, in part agreeing with the plaintiff, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in entering a judgment of foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff as to the judgment liens. As to the plaintiff's appeal, we reverse the judgment of the trial court that determined that the mortgage was void as against public policy and remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with law. We also reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the defendants' cross appeal.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=613

AC38563 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Henderson ("In this foreclosure action, the self-represented defendant, Genevieve Henderson, appeals from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The defendant claims that (1) the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to foreclose, and (2) she was deprived of due process of law in connection with several motions that she brought during the course of the litigation. We conclude that the defendant's claims lack merit and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")



Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=571

AC39080 - Bank of New York, Trustee v. Savvidis ("The defendants Athina Savvidis and Anastasios Savvidis appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure reentered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of New York, as trustee, following the lifting of a bankruptcy stay. On appeal, the defendants contend that the trial court improperly relied on an affidavit furnished by the plaintiff in calculating the outstanding debt. 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=553

AC39007 - Santander Bank, N.A. v. Godek ("The self-represented defendant in this residential mortgage foreclosure action, Elizabeth A. Godek (also known as Allison E. Murray), appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered against her in favor of the plaintiff, Santander Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant appears to raise issues regarding the court's judgment of foreclosure and its denial of her motion to open. We are unable to discern the analysis of the issues raised on appeal. Nothing that the defendant has written in her appellate briefs persuades us of the existence of any error committed by the trial court, much less reversible error.")


1 2 3