AC45043 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Weinbaum ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant, Sholeh Weinbaum, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-4. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied her motion to set aside the default that was entered against her for failing to plead because the plaintiff's motion for judgment was filed prematurely. Alternatively, she makes the related claim that the default was set aside by operation of law when she filed her answer and special defenses. Lastly, she claims that the court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to set aside the default. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44906 - Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Burke ("The defendants Kevin R. Burke and Maura Lee Wahlberg appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA10.On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly rejected their special defense of laches. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45055 - Long Manor Owners' Association, Inc. v. Alungbe ("The defendant Gabriel D. Alungbe, a self-represented party, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Long Manor Owners' Association, Inc., arising out of outstanding common charges in connection with the defendant's condominium unit in Long Manor Condominiums in New Britain (complex). The defendant claims that the trial court erred in: (1) denying him his due process rights and the opportunity to present evidence at the trial to determine the amount of the debt; (2) awarding the plaintiff the amount of the debt, as well as attorney's and other fees; (3) appointing David Karat, the property manager of the complex, as receiver of rents; (4) failing to require the plaintiff and Karat to disclose the amount of late fees they charged; (5) granting Karat a receiver fee of $90 per hour; (6) failing to require the plaintiff and Karat to produce evidence regarding water and sewer statements; (7) denying his requests to conduct the trial via alternative means; (8) failing to consider all of the testimony and evidence presented during the trial; and (9) denying his motion to reargue vis-a-vis the foreclosure judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45502 - Wells Fargo Bank, National Assn. v. Doreus ("The self-represented defendant, Elita Doreus, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of the First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF17 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-FF17. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure because the action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20660 - Strazza Building & Construction, Inc. v. Harris ("In Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc., 332 Conn. 67, 87, 208 A.3d 1223 (2019), this court held that, when a property owner and a general contractor have resolved disputes arising from a construction project by way of binding arbitration, there arises a rebuttable presumption that the general contractor and its subcontractors are in privity for purposes of res judicata in any subsequent litigation. In this certified appeal, we must determine whether the Appellate Court correctly applied Girolametti to the facts of the present case, in which a general contractor had sued the property owner to foreclose two mechanic's liens it served on the owner, claiming unpaid balances for labor and materials stemming from renovations it began on the owner's home. In particular, we consider whether the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's denial of the property owner's motion for summary judgment, declining to give preclusive effect to the findings of the trial court in a prior action between the owner and one of the general contractor's subcontractors. We agree with the Appellate Court that the presumption of privity that we held to apply in Girolametti does not apply in the present case, in which a property owner seeks to bind a general contractor to a prior judgment against a subcontractor. We also agree that the trial court correctly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment because there remains an issue of material fact as to whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to the facts of this case.

. . . The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20592 - Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope ("The named defendant, Achyut M. Tope, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion to open and vacate the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon. In this certified appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that his motion to open and vacate the judgment of foreclosure by sale constituted a collateral attack on an earlier judgment. The defendant further claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to open, which alleged that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the foreclosure action.

We agree with the defendant that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that his motion to open constituted a collateral attack on an earlier judgment. We also reject the alternative ground that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to open, in which he claimed that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court with direction to remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45109 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants Roger Essaghof and Katherine Marr-Essaghof appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to reset the law days in accordance with a remand order of our Supreme Court. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, 336 Conn. 633, 653, 249 A.3d 327 (2020). On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) construed that remand order in a narrow manner and (2) denied their motion to dismiss predicated on the plaintiff's alleged noncompliance with the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP) notice requirements set forth in General Statutes § 8-265ee (a). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45169 - Speer v. Norwich ("In the underlying action, the self-represented plaintiff, Sheri Speer, sought injunctive relief that would effectively prohibit the defendant, the city of Norwich, from proceeding with a tax foreclosure sale of real property she owned. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's granting of a motion to dismiss in favor of the defendant. The court determined that the issues raised in the action were moot and, thus, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her action. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court erred in finding that the matter was moot, (2) even if the matter was moot, the collateral consequences doctrine still applies, and (3) the court 'improperly den[ied] [her] due process by not enjoining the tax sale proceedings to which she was not a party and to which were subjected to the impaired functionality and limitations on higher bids imposed [by] COVID-19 restrictions.' We dismiss the appeal as moot.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44902 - Speer v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Sheri Speer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. (U.S. Bank). The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court (1) erred in granting U.S. Bank's motion to strike dated February 26, 2021, because the motion to strike (a) "did not comply with Practice Book § 10-41" and (b) was not directed to the operative complaint and (2) erred in granting U.S. Bank's motion for judgment dated September 21, 2021, because it was filed while an automatic appellate stay was in effect. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43761 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Rago ("This matter returns to us following our decision in U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Rago, 189 Conn. App. 902, 203 A.3d 718 (2019), in which this court, by memorandum decision, affirmed a judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for the C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-MX1, and remanded the case 'for the purpose of setting new law days.' Id. The defendant Frank V. Rago now appeals from the trial court's subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure rendered, on remand, in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims, inter alia, that the court, in rendering the subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure, improperly exceeded the scope of the remand order in opening the judgment and making updated findings, sua sponte and without providing to the parties adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, with respect to the fair market value of the property and the amount of the debt at issue. We agree, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45020 - Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("This case returns to us following our decision in Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 200 Conn. App. 852, 241 A.3d 706 (2020), cert. denied, 336 Conn. 909, 244 A.3d 562 (2021), in which this court, inter alia, affirmed a judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., on its counterclaim seeking foreclosure, and remanded the case 'solely for the purpose of setting new law days.' Id., 869.The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, now appeals from the trial court's subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure rendered, on remand, in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court, in rendering the subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure, erred in interpreting this court's remand order as prohibiting it from changing the nature of the judgment to a foreclosure by sale. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44515 - Retained Realty, Inc. v. LeComte ("In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff, Retained Realty, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to reargue the court clerk's rejection of its application for an execution of ejectment, which sought to eject the defendant Denise E.A. LeComte and her adult children, Nichols L. LeComte and Alysia A. LeComte (adult children), both of whom are nonparties to this action. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court erred in denying its motion to reargue the clerk's rejection of its application for an execution of ejectment. Following oral argument before this court, but before this court rendered its judgment, the plaintiff obtained from the trial court an execution of ejectment in this action, as to the defendant, and an execution of ejectment in an omitted party action, as to the adult children. We ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the issue of mootness. Having reviewed the parties' supplemental briefs, we conclude that the plaintiff's claim is moot, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44378 - Pennymac Corp. v. Tarzia ("The defendant Joseph Tarzia appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Wilmington Trust National Association as Trustee for MFRA Trust 2015-1. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court incorrectly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over this foreclosure action on the ground that the original plaintiff, Pennymac Corp. (Pennymac), complied with General Statutes § 8-265ee (a), the notice provision of the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP), General Statutes § 8-265cc et seq. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44564 - Lending Home Funding Corp. v. REI Holdings, LLC ("The defendant Traditions Oil Group, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to reargue/reconsider the court's denial of its motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Lending Home Funding Corporation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court incorrectly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open the judgment of strict foreclosure on the ground that title already had vested in the plaintiff, thereby rendering the defendant's motion to open moot. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43121 - CIT Bank, N.A. v. Francis ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Johanna Francis appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, CIT Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order regarding certain discovery requests, thereby preventing her from pursuing her special defenses. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC43121 Concurrence - CIT Bank, N.A. v. Francis

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44964 - Wilmington Trust, National Assn. v. N'Guessan ("The defendant Victor K. N'Guessan appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wilmington Trust. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without considering the applicability of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel and (2) abused its discretion by sustaining the plaintiff's objections to his interrogatories and requests for production. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44132 - GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Catale ("In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Vito Catale and Maria Catale appeal from the trial court's granting of an amended 'ex parte' application for a prejudgment remedy (ex parte application) filed by the original plaintiff, GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Association as Legal Title Trustee. The defendants claim that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's ex parte application because (1) certain statutorily required affidavits either were missing or insufficient and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the ex parte application, and (2) even if the court had jurisdiction over the ex parte application, the court deprived the defendants of due process by granting it without providing the defendants with a postattachment hearing at which they would have had an opportunity to challenge both whether probable cause existed to order a prejudgment remedy and in what amount. . . we affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45003 - U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Dallas ("The defendant Lesley Dallas appeals following the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered against her in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, in this residential mortgage foreclosure action. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only because it erred in determining that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the defendant's special defenses of residential mortgage fraud and fraud in the inducement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC45003 Appendix - U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Dallas

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44819 - Milford v. Recycling, Inc. ("Foreclosure of municipal tax lien; denial of motion to open judgment; "In this municipal tax lien foreclosure action, the defendant Donna Stewart, Trustee, appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the objection of the plaintiff, the city of Milford, and denying her motion to open the existing judgment of foreclosure and to extend the sale date ordered therein. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in concluding that, considering the equities advanced by both parties for the court's consideration, the balancing of those equities favored the plaintiff. In response, the plaintiff argues that the judgment of the court should be affirmed because the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that those equities favored the plaintiff. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44437 - Cummings Enterprise, Inc. v. Moutinho ("The plaintiff, Cummings Enterprise, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing for lack of standing its foreclosure action brought against the defendant, Manuel Moutinho, Trustee for the Mark IV Construction Co., Inc., 401 (K) Savings Plan. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action because any mortgage interest that the plaintiff once may have held with respect to the subject property, an undeveloped building lot in Stratford, had been foreclosed in an earlier foreclosure action brought by the defendant. Because the plaintiff, who was defaulted for failure to appear in the prior foreclosure action, made no effort to redeem on or before its designated law day, its mortgage interest was extinguished, and, after all law days had passed, title to the property vested in the defendant, leaving the property no longer subject to the plaintiff's mortgage. On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of convoluted arguments challenging the court's granting of the motion to dismiss. On the basis of our thorough review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we conclude that the plaintiff's arguments are devoid of merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44905 - Stratford v. 500 North Avenue, LLC (Foreclosure of municipal tax liens; "This is an appeal by the defendant 500 North Avenue, LLC, from a judgment of foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Stratford. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant lacks standing to maintain the appeal because it no longer owns the property at issue and, therefore, is not aggrieved by the judgment. Although the defendant concedes that it has no ownership interest in the property, it opposes the motion on the ground that it is aggrieved by the possible collateral consequences of the judgment. Specifically, the defendant argues that the judgment establishes its underlying tax obligations to the plaintiff and could be used by the plaintiff to establish the defendant's liability in a future, independent action by the plaintiff to collect unpaid taxes not satisfied by a judgment in this case. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the defendant is not aggrieved by the judgment and, therefore, lacks standing to pursue this appeal. As a result, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions