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.)