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

Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4653

AC43262 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Malick ("The defendant Abu Hashem Malick appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. On appeal, Malick claims that the court erred as a matter of law when, despite his objections to some of the calculations set forth in the plaintiff's affidavit of debt, it accepted the affidavit and relied on it to establish the amount of the defendant's indebtedness. Because we are bound by our Supreme Court's decision in Burritt Mutual Savings Bank of New Britain v. Tucker, 183 Conn. 369, 374–75, 439 A.2d 396 (1981), we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4646

AC43958 - Strazza Building & Construction, Inc. v Harris (Foreclosure of mechanic's lien; "The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Strazza Building & Construction, Inc. (Strazza). The defendants claim that the court improperly denied their motion for summary judgment, which was predicated on a claim that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In the alternative, the defendants claim that the court erred in failing to find that Strazza's claims fail as a result of the application of collateral estoppel. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4598

AC43653 - Rockstone Capital, LLC v. Caldwell ("In this strict foreclosure action, we consider the enforceability of a settlement and forbearance agreement (settlement agreement) entered into by the plaintiff, Rockstone Capital, LLC, the defendants, Vicki A. Ditri and Morgan J. Caldwell, Jr., and Caldwell's business, Wesconn Automotive Center, LLC (Wesconn), that resulted from a collections action brought by the plaintiff against Caldwell and Wesconn. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the defendant, on her special defense that the settlement agreement was unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly concluded that the settlement agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable as to the defendant. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4577

AC42829 - Keybank, N.A v. Yazar (Foreclosure; summary judgment; Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program statutory (§ 8-265ee (a)) notice; whether plaintiff's failure to comply with notice requirement of § 8- 265ee (a) deprived trial court of subject matter jurisdiction; whether plaintiff may rely on notice that had been sent by original lender in prior foreclosure action that was later dismissed to satisfy its own notice requirements in separate foreclosure action; "The defendant Ozlem Yazar, a self-represented party, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, KeyBank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims, inter alia, that the plaintiff failed to comply with General Statutes § 8-265ee (a), the notice provision of the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP), General Statutes § 8-265cc et seq., and that such noncompliance left the court without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the foreclosure action. We agree and conclude that the failure of the plaintiff (as the original plaintiff in the present action) to mail an EMAP notice to the defendant (as the mortgagor) in connection with the present action deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to dismiss the action.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4555

AC43849 - Gibson v. Jefferson Woods Community, Inc. (Motion to dismiss; standing; subject matter jurisdiction; "The plaintiff, Lilly M. Gibson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendant Jefferson Woods Community, Inc. (Jefferson Woods), to dismiss the action.On appeal, Gibson claims that, in granting Jefferson Woods' motion to dismiss, the court improperly determined that she lacked standing (1) to seek foreclosure and (2) to pursue her claim of unjust enrichment. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC44143 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Fitzpatrick (Judgment of foreclosure by sale; whether trial court erred in granting motion to approve sale without newspaper advertisements; motion to terminate stay; mootness; right of redemption; "In this foreclosure action, the defendant Christopher M. Fitzpatrick appeals from the judgment of the trial court approving the sale of the mortgaged property, on the motion of the committee of sale (committee), following the court's rendering of a judgment of foreclosure by sale in favor of the plaintiff mortgagee, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for MASTR 2007-2. On appeal, the defendant argues that his objection to the motion for approval of committee sale, which was based on a lack of newspaper advertisements, should have been sustained. The plaintiff argues that this appeal is moot because the defendant failed to seek review of the court's termination of the appellate stay 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 dismiss the appeal as moot.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4537

AC43543 - Nikola v. 2938 Fairfield, LLC ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant 2938 Fairfield, LLC (Fairfield), and the substitute defendant, Jeffrey Weiss, the executor of the estate of the original defendant, Naomi Drabkin, appeal from the deficiency judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Carol Nikola, the executor of the estate of the original plaintiff, Nikola Nikola. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court (1) incorrectly concluded that it was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from determining the amount of the deficiency judgment, and (2) improperly included in the deficiency judgment certain tax liens paid by Nikola Nikola. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4524

AC40918 - Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC (Foreclosure by sale in favor of the plaintiff; “At trial, the plaintiff sought a judgment of foreclosure by sale and a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff’s mortgage had priority over the defendants’ mortgage. The defendants argued on appeal that the trial court erred in its determination that the mortgage held by the plaintiff (Saunders mortgage) on the underlying real property had priority over the mortgage held by the defendants (Davis mortgage) on the same property. This court summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. Our Supreme Court granted certification and reversed the decision of this court and remanded the appeal to this court for further proceedings.”)

AC43542, AC43575 - LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd. Partnertship (“In these related appeals arising from a commercial foreclosure action, the defendants… claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the plaintiff had standing to foreclose the mortgage because it was not entitled to enforce the promissory note; in relying on the provisions of a regulatory agreement between Underwood and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conclude that Underwood had defaulted on the mortgage, and in calculating the amount of the debt owed to the plaintiff; in concluding that foreclosure was an equitable remedy in this case; in awarding monetary damages in addition to the judgment of strict foreclosure; and in awarding damages to the plaintiff under a theory of unjust enrichment. In Docket No. AC 43575, the city challenges the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had standing to foreclose on the ground that New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp., 238 Conn. 745, 680 A.2d 301 (1996) (Bedford Realty), the Supreme Court case on which the trial court relied in so concluding, has been overruled sub silentio, or, in the alternative, was improperly decided. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4506

AC43576 - Caliber Home Loans, Inc. v. Zeller ("The defendant Cambridge Holdings, Inc. (Cambridge), appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) SLS presented insufficient evidence to prove it had standing to foreclose on the mortgage, (2) it had standing to challenge the adequacy of the notice of acceleration and default under the note, (3) SLS presented insufficient evidence to prove the amount of the outstanding debt, (4) it proved its special defenses, and (5) the court erred in rendering a judgment of strict foreclosure.

---

The judgment is reversed with respect to the order of strict foreclosure and the case is remanded with direction to order foreclosure by sale and for further proceedings according to law; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4490

SC20463 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Rothermel (Mootness; whether Appellate Court properly dismissed as moot defendant's appeal from denial of motion to open strict foreclosure judgment filed one day after title had vested in plaintiff; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 49-15 (a) (1), which provides in relevant part that no judgment of strict foreclosure "shall be opened after the title has become absolute in any encumbrancer," deprives the trial and appellate courts of subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to open a judgment that, although filed after the law days have passed, invokes the trial court's continuing equitable authority. The defendant, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing her appeal from the trial court's denial of such a motion. In the present appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the Appellate Court's dismissal was improper because § 49-15 did not render her equitable claims moot, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to open the judgment. The plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, argues in response that the prohibition on postvesting motions to open a judgment set forth in § 49-15 implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of our state courts and that, in any event, the defendant is not entitled to equitable relief on the merits. Although we agree with the defendant that the Appellate Court improperly dismissed her appeal in light of the equitable nature of the particular claims at issue, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the underlying motion to open the judgment. . .

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to open the judgment on the merits.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4467

AC44016 - Mirlis v. Yeshiva of New Haven, Inc. ("The defendant, Yeshiva of New Haven, Inc., appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Eliyahu Mirlis. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined the valuation of the property in question. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4456

AC43002 - Goshen Mortgage, LLC v. Androulidakis ("The self-represented defendant, Jameela Androulidakis, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Goshen Mortgage, LLC, as Separate Trustee for GDBT I Trust 2011-1. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the plaintiff, Goshen Mortgage, LLC, had standing to bring the foreclosure action, and thus erred by granting the plaintiff's motion to substitute and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, (2) granted the substitute plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (3) rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure for the substitute plaintiff, and (4) failed to grant the defendant's motion to open the judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4417

AC43459 - First Niagara Bank, N.A. v. Pouncey (Adjustable rate note; mortgage on real property; bank merger; loan modification; “On appeal, the defendants claim that, in light of our Supreme Court’s holding in U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers, 332 Conn. 656, 212 A.3d 226 (2019), the court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to reargue and reconsider the court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to open summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC42792 - Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. McCarthy (Denial of motion to open and vacate the judgment of strict foreclosure or extend the law day; petition for reinclusion in the foreclosure mediation program; foreclosure of real property; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motions. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4333

AC43719 - Bank of New York Mellon v. Madison ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants Russell M. Madison and Margit Madison appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee, on its amended two count complaint asserting claims for foreclosure and reformation of the mortgage. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly granted (1) the plaintiff's oral motion for judgment on its reformation claim when the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence in support thereof and (2) the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only on its foreclosure claim when the plaintiff failed to establish that the default notice that it had mailed to the defendants complied with the notice requirements of the mortgage. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43568 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Moncho ("The defendants Lee Moncho and Karen Moncho appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, Trustee, as successor in interest to Wachovia Bank, N.A., as Trustee for JPMorgan 2005-A7. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred by (1) refusing to deem all of the defendants' special defenses as admitted when the plaintiff failed to reply to them prior to trial, (2) concluding that the plaintiff had standing and was entitled to enforce the note, (3) rejecting the defendants' five special defenses, and (4) improperly admitting evidence concerning the payment history of the note as a business record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4308

AC40959 - Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope ("The defendant Achyut M. Tope appeals from the 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, formerly known as The Bank of New York, as Successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Bear Stearns Alt-A Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-3. The defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to open and vacate because the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action and, consequently, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over it. The plaintiff contends that it had standing to commence this action and that this appeal constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the court's foreclosure judgment, which initially was entered in 2014 and from which the defendant did not appeal. We agree with the plaintiff that the defendant's appeal from the motion to open and vacate constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the foreclosure judgment, and, accordingly, affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to open and vacate.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4298

AC41720 - OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Ceslik ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by (1) rejecting his defense of laches when it granted the motion of OneWest Bank, N.A. (OneWest), for summary judgment as to liability, (2) rejecting his postjudgment claim that the plaintiff lacked standing, (3) crediting obviously fraudulent and defective assignments of the mortgage, (4) denying his motion to dismiss the present action on the ground that OneWest initiated a prior identical foreclosure action against the defendant that it subsequently withdrew, and (5) denying him due process in connection with his motion for judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4253

AC42176 - Newtown v. Ostrosky ("This is an appeal from a denial of a motion to reargue and for reconsideration filed by the defendant Scott E. Ostrosky from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Newtown. On appeal, the defendant claims that the judgment should be opened and vacated because (1) the default that was entered by the court clerk was invalid and cannot serve as the basis for the foreclosure judgment and (2) the motion for a judgment of foreclosure was filed prematurely by the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4193

AC42389 - Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.); foreclosure; whether plaintiff failed to adequately brief claim regarding foreclosure judgment; "The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., after a jury trial on the plaintiff's complaint and a court trial on the defendant's counterclaim. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) granted the defendant’s March 15, 2017 motion in limine precluding evidence regarding a 2008 modification agreement (March 15 motion in limine), (2) granted the defendant’s March 16, 2017 motion in limine precluding evidence regarding government regulatory action taken against the defendant (March 16 motion in limine), and (3) denied the plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint.We dismiss the plaintiff’s first claim as moot because the plaintiff has not challenged both of the trial court’s bases for its evidentiary ruling.With regard to the plaintiff’s remaining claims, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4170

AC41229 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pototschnig ("The defendant Hubert Pototschnig appeals from the judgment of foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, for HSI Asset Securitization Corporation 2005-NC2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-NC2 (HSI).On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly determined that the plaintiff had standing to bring the foreclosure action, (2) failed to follow the decision of an out of state court, (3) failed to consider whether the securitized trust, HSI, ever received the note and mortgage, and (4) abused its discretion in several of its evidentiary rulings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4153

SC20322 - Redding v. Georgetown Land Development Co., LLC (Foreclosure of municipal tax liens; "This appeal requires us to determine the priority of tax liens levied on real property by the Georgetown Special Taxing District (taxing district) pursuant to No. 07-196, § 4 (b) (3), of the 2007 Public Acts (P.A. 07-196) relative to tax liens held by other municipal entities on that same property. The plaintiffs, the town of Redding (town), the Redding Water Pollution Control Commission (commission), and Georgetown Fire District (fire district), brought this action to foreclose municipal liens against the defendant RJ Tax Lien Investments, LLC, an assignee of real estate tax liens originally levied by the taxing district. The town and the fire district filed motions for partial summary judgment with respect to priority, asserting that, under P.A. 07-196, § 4 (b) (3), their tax liens had priority over the liens that the defendant had acquired from the taxing district. The trial court agreed, granted their motions for partial summary judgment, and subsequently rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the town and the fire district. The defendant appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure, claiming that the trial court incorrectly concluded that its liens were subordinate to those of the town and the fire district. Although we agree with the trial court that the liens acquired by the defendant from the taxing district are subordinate to those of the town, we agree with the defendant that the trial court incorrectly concluded that they are subordinate to those of the fire district. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment insofar as the trial court granted the fire district's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to priority, and we remand the case with direction to vacate that portion of the judgment subordinating the liens acquired by the defendant to the fire district's liens, to render judgment consistent with this opinion, and for the setting of new law days.")


1 2 3 4 5 6 7