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 Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4056

AC42560 - Bank of New York Mellon v. Mangiafico (Foreclosure; whether foreclosure action was barred by limitation period set forth in statute (§ 42a-3-118); "The defendant Sebastian Mangiafico appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York, as Trustee (CWALT 2007-14T2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only because (1) the action is time barred by the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 42a-3-118, and (2) the court failed to consider the defendant's fifth special defense, namely, that the plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4027

AC39426 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn (Foreclosure; whether appeal from trial court's striking of special defenses was taken from final judgment; "This foreclosure case returns to this court on remand from our Supreme Court. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn, 333 Conn. 923, 218 A.3d 67 (2019). The defendant Michael John Melahn appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, on the defendant's stricken second amended counterclaim and the court's striking of the defendant's second amended special defenses. In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn, 181 Conn. App. 607, 614, 186 A.3d 1215 (2018), rev'd, 333 Conn. 923, 218 A.3d 67 (2019), this court dismissed, for lack of a final judgment, the portion of the defendant's appeal taken from the striking of his second amended special defenses and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Thereafter, the defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for certification to appeal. Our Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition, vacated this court's judgment, and remanded the case to this court with direction to reconsider its judgment in light of our Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers, 332 Conn. 656, 212 A.3d 226 (2019). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn, supra, 333 Conn. 923. On remand, we conclude that Blowers does not require a different disposition of the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss, for lack of a final judgment, the appeal as to the striking of the defendant's second amended special defenses, and we affirm the judgment in all other respects.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4017

AC42037 - USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Gianetti (Foreclosure; motion for summary judgment; motion to strike counterclaim; motion to open judgment; "In his appeal, Gianetti, who is self-represented, makes four separate claims of error: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure; (2) the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to strike his counterclaim; (3) the trial court erred in divers ways in adjudicating the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only; and (4) the trial court violated his right not to be deprived of his property without due process of law by the manner in which it adjudicated his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure, having allegedly been put under pressure to resolve the matter quickly, before all necessary discovery on the motion could be conducted. For the following reasons, we conclude that none of these claims furnishes a ground for granting the relief that Gianetti seeks in this appeal.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3990

SC20182 - Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC (Foreclosure; final judgment; declaratory judgment; "The issue in this foreclosure action is whether a determination of the priority of mortgages can be challenged in an appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale, before the foreclosure sale has taken place, when the priority of the foreclosing plaintiff's mortgage is in dispute. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Roger Saunders, Trustee of Roger Saunders Money Purchase Plan, on his two count complaint seeking a judgment of foreclosure on certain real property and a declaratory judgment that his mortgage had priority over a purported mortgage on the property held by the defendants Karen Davis and Daniel Davis. The Appellate Court summarily dismissed the Davis defendants' appeal challenging the priority of the plaintiff's mortgage over their mortgage for want of a final judgment. We distinguish the present case from one in which there is a dispute among junior encumbrancers and reverse the Appellate Court's order summarily dismissing the appeal.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3968

AC41566 - Merritt Medical Center Owners Corp. v. Gianetti (Foreclosure of statutory (§ 47-258 (m)) liens against medical office units for unpaid common charges; "In this joint appeal, the defendant Charles D. Gianetti appeals from two judgments of foreclosure by sale, each rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Merritt Medical Center Owners Corp., Inc., as to the defendant's two medical office units, which are located in a common interest community organized under the Common Interest Ownership Act (act), General Statutes § 47-200 et seq. The defendant claims in relevant part that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment as to liability after it erroneously concluded that the plaintiff was in compliance with the mandates of General Statutes § 47-258 (m) when it commenced these actions. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgments of the trial court.")

AC41541 - American Tax Funding, LLC v. Gore (Foreclosure of municipal tax liens; "In this municipal tax foreclosure case, the defendant William T. Gore, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, ATFH Real Property, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to open the judgment because he had equity in the home and, therefore, the judgment of strict foreclosure had been improper when it was rendered. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42010 - World Business Lenders, LLC v. 526-528 North Main Street, LLC (Foreclosure; "The defendant Elissa E. Speer appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, WBL SPE II, LLC (substitute plaintiff). On appeal, Speer claims that the court improperly rendered the judgment of strict foreclosure because (1) the note and mortgage charged more than 120 percent interest and were unconscionable, (2) the amended complaint did not describe the property being foreclosed, and (3) the substitute plaintiff lacked standing as of the date of the amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3956

AC41723 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Syed (Foreclosure; motion for summary judgment; judgment of strict foreclosure; "In this foreclosure action, the defendant Sonia Syed appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the second substitute plaintiff, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, doing business as Christiana Trust, as Trustee for Normandy Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2017-1 (Wilmington). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erroneously (1) granted the motion filed by the first substitute plaintiff, Christiana Trust, A Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB as Trustee for Normandy Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2013-18 (Christiana Trust), for summary judgment as to liability, despite questions concerning whether the original plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan), was the holder of the note at the time it commenced this foreclosure action, (2) rejected the defendant's first and third special defenses when granting summary judgment as to liability, and (3) struck the defendant's fourth count of her amended counterclaim when it granted summary judgment as to liability. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3944

AC42415 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Mamudi (Foreclosure; "In this appeal, which stems from a fourteen year old foreclosure action, the defendants Wellsville Properties, LLC (Wellsville), and John C. Pastor (Pastor) appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying, as untimely, their motions to reargue the court's decisions granting two motions for orders filed by the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for RASC 2005-AHL1. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the court abused its discretion in denying their motions to reargue as untimely where, as here, those motions asserted mistakes of law in the court's rulings on the plaintiff's motions for orders, (2) the court erred in ruling that the law days were not "automatically vacated" pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15 (b) as a result of a bankruptcy petition filed by Wellsville on February 20, 2018, (3) the court improperly determined that the bankruptcy stay was eliminated by 11 U.S.C. § 362 (c) (4) (A) (i) (2012), and (4) even if § 49-15 (b) does not apply, pursuant to federal law, 11 U.S.C § 108 (b) (2012), Wellsville's bankruptcy petition extended the law days by up to sixty days to April 17, 2018, a date well past the February 20, 2018 date set forth in the foreclosure judgment. This action resulted in harm to the defendants in that they lost the right to move to open the judgment and to further extend the law days when the court ruled on the motions for orders on March 12, 2018, before the commencement of the extended law days on April 17, 2018. We conclude that there is no practical relief available to the defendants and, therefore, that the court should have dismissed as moot, rather than denied, their motions to reargue.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3932

AC42184 - RCN Capital, LLC v. Sunford Properties & Development, LLC (Foreclosure; personal guarantee; deficiency judgment; claim that trial count improperly rendered judgment for plaintiff on count of complaint seeking to recover on personal guarantee; "In this action to foreclosure two mortgages and to collect on a personal guarantee, the defendants Sunford Properties & Development, LLC (Sunford) and Janny Lam appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, RCN Capital, LLC. The defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) allowed the plaintiff to pursue a claim for monetary damages against Lam that was more than the amount to which the parties had stipulated to be the amount of the deficiency and (2) rendered judgment against all defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable on Lam's guarantee. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41472 - Hudson City Savings Bank v. Hellman (Foreclosure; summary judgment; claim that trial court abused its discretion when it granted motion to substitute plaintiff; whether substitution of plaintiff had substantive effect or prejudiced defendants; "The defendants Charles D. Hellman and Holly H. Hellman appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T). On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) granted the motion to substitute M&T for Hudson City Savings Bank (HCSB) as the plaintiff in the action, and (2) rendered summary judgment as to liability in favor of HCSB. We agree with the defendants' second claim and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3902

AC41458 - Office Condominium Assn., Inc v. Rompre ("The defendants Marguerite Rompre and Bertrand Rompre appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, The Office Condominium Association, Inc. On appeal, the defendants raise a number of challenges to the trial court's decision. We do not address these claims, however, because we conclude that the defendants' appeal was not taken from a final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")



Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3888

AC42221 - Cheswold (TL), LLC, BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Kwong ("The self-represented defendant, Matthew J. Kwong, appeals from the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale of his property located at 9 Bradley Lane in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown (property).He claims that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the substituted plaintiff, ATCF REO Holdings, LLC (ATCF), lacked standing to foreclose the property because the assignment of certain municipal tax liens to ATCF was not recorded on the Newtown land records. Accordingly, the principal issue in this appeal is whether the assignment of a municipal tax lien is required to be recorded on the land records in order for the assignee to have standing to foreclose the property, which is an issue of first impression for this court. For the following reasons, we conclude that such recording is not required and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42228 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Madison ("The defendant Margit Madison 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 MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1, following the termination of the defendant's bankruptcy stay. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by concluding that she lacked standing to object to the plaintiff's motion to reenter the judgment of strict foreclosure. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3874

AC42026 - Compass Bank v. Dunn ("Practice Book § 13-19 is a rule not often considered by either this court or the Supreme Court. We examine it in this appeal, because the defendants Jeffrey S. Dunn and Diane C. Dunn claim that, despite their counsel's compliance with § 13-19, the trial court erroneously granted the motion for default for failure to disclose a defense filed by the plaintiff, Compass Bank. We agree with the defendants and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41851 - Wachovia Mortgage, FSB v. Toczek ("The defendant Aleksandra Toczek appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not have standing, (2) improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, (3) improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure in violation of Practice Book § 23-18, and (4) abused its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to reargue the judgment of strict foreclosure. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3865

AC42254 - U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Armijo ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants Anthony R. Armijo and Cynthia Armijo appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their postjudgment motion to dismiss. The defendants claim on appeal that the court erred in rejecting their claim that it lacked jurisdiction over this action because the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc., did not have standing to bring it. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")




Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3831

AC42180 - The Bank of New York Mellon v. Mazzeo ("The defendants, John Mazzeo and Linda Mazzeo, appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2005-56, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-56.The defendants claim that the plaintiff (1) lacked standing to bring the present action and (2) failed to prove its prima facie case. We disagree with the defendants' first claim but agree with the defendants' second claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3822

SC20188, SC20189 - Jenzack Partners, LLC v. Stoneridge Associates, LLC ("The plaintiff, Jenzack Partners, LLC (Jenzack), and the defendant Jennifer Tine (Tine) separately appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court ordering strict foreclosure. See Jenzack Partners, LLC v. Stoneridge Associates, LLC, 183 Conn. App. 128, 143, 192 A.3d 455 (2018). These appeals require us to consider (1) whether an entity that was assigned a promissory note as well as a mortgage granted as collateral to secure a personal guarantee of that promissory note has standing to foreclose on the mortgage despite the fact that the guarantee was not explicitly assigned to the foreclosing party, and (2) whether an initial entry into a record of debt is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule when that entry was provided by a third party in the course of the sale of the debt. As to the issue of standing, Tine claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that Jenzack had standing to foreclose a mortgage executed in support of a personal guarantee of a promissory note given by a third party because Jenzack did not receive a written assignment of the personal guarantee. As to the issue of hearsay, Jenzack claims that an adequate foundation was laid for the entirety of the record of debt to be admitted into evidence (exhibit 22) pursuant to the business records exception even though the initial entry was provided by a third party. Although we agree with the Appellate Court's conclusion that Jenzack had standing to foreclose the mortgage, we conclude that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the business records exception did not apply to Jenzack's calculation of the debt owed on the promissory note. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

AC40222 - HSBC Bank USA, National Assn. v. Nathan ("The defendants, Leslie I. Nathan, Lynne W. Nathan, and Lynne W. Nathan, Trustee of the Lynne W. Nathan Trust Agreement dated November 19, 2001, appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure and the judgment on their counterclaim, as amended, rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Trustee. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in striking two of their special defenses, as amended, and their counterclaim, as amended. We reverse the judgments of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3817

AC41432 - HSBC Bank USA, National Assn. v. Karlen ("The defendants Gerard M. Karlen and Carla Rivers Karlen appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-2.On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3806

AC42128 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Bennett - ("The defendant Dalphine Bennett appeals from the entry of a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association as trustee, successor in interest to Bank of America, National Association, as trustee, successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, National Association, as trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-4.The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the defendant's counterclaims alleging (a) vexatious litigation and (b) abuse of process; and (2) failed to hold an immediate hearing in damages following the entry of summary judgment as to liability only, which violated Practice Book § 17-50.We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3767

SC20150 - Cenatiempo v. Bank of America, N.A. ("This appeal requires us to determine whether allegations that a residential loan servicer engaged in systematic misrepresentations, delays and evasiveness over several years of postdefault loan modification negotiations with the mortgagors can suffice to state a claim for a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and a claim for negligence. The plaintiffs, mortgagors Sandra Cenatiempo and Carmine Cenatiempo, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, which granted the motion of the defendant loan servicer, Bank of America, N.A., to strike the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs' principal contention is that their allegations were legally sufficient to support their CUTPA and negligence claims because the defendant's pattern of misconduct violated clearly defined standards and policies reflected in Connecticut, federal, and national statutory and regulatory requirements aimed at preventing foreclosure that were binding on the defendant and that this conduct caused them substantial financial and emotional injury. We agree with the plaintiffs that the alleged facts could support a claim under CUTPA. We disagree with the plaintiffs, however, that the alleged facts would support a claim of negligence. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court insofar as it struck the CUTPA claim.")



Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3764

SC19903 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Crawford ("The primary issue raised by this writ of error is whether the automatic stay provision of the federal bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a) (1), precludes a committee for sale from recovering fees and expenses from a plaintiff in a foreclosure action that has been stayed because the defendant has filed for bankruptcy. The plaintiff, the U.S. Bank National Association, brought the underlying foreclosure action against the defendant Jacquelyn N. Crawford. The trial court ultimately ordered a foreclosure by sale and appointed the plaintiff in error, Douglas M. Evans, as the committee for sale. Before the sale could be completed, however, Crawford declared bankruptcy, and the foreclosure action was stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a) (1). Thereafter, the plaintiff in error filed a motion pursuant to General Statutes § 49-25, seeking to recover, from the bank, the fees and expenses that he had incurred in preparing for the sale. Relying on an Appellate Court decision; see Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 150 Conn. App. 745, 755, 93 A.3d 1167 (2014) (when defendant in foreclosure action has declared bankruptcy, automatic stay provision applies to motions for fees and expenses by committee for sale against nondebtor plaintiff); the trial court concluded that the plaintiff in error's motion for fees and expenses was stayed and issued an order denying the motion on that ground. This writ of error was then filed pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (10) and Practice Book § 72-1. Specifically, the plaintiff in error contends that this court should overrule Shivers because the Appellate Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to extend the automatic stay provision to motions to recover fees and expenses from nondebtor plaintiffs in foreclosure actions. In the alternative, the plaintiff in error contends that we should overrule Shivers on the merits because it is in conflict with the decisions of federal bankruptcy courts addressing this issue. We conclude that state courts lack jurisdiction to extend the automatic stay provision to proceedings against nondebtors and that Shivers must be overruled on that ground. Accordingly, we grant the writ of error and remand the case to the trial court with direction to vacate the order denying the plaintiff in error's motion for fees and expenses and to entertain the motion.")



Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3754

AC42099 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A v. Ferraro ("The defendants Thomas J. Ferraro and Danielle Ferraro appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee for MFRA Trust 2015-2. The defendants claim that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment as to liability in favor of the plaintiff after it held an evidentiary hearing, and weighed and relied on the evidence adduced at that hearing, in resolving an issue of material fact in favor of the plaintiff. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2 3 4 5