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 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.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3756

AC41924 - Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. v. Greenwood Manor, LLC ("In this action to foreclose certain municipal property tax liens on a 9.9 acre parcel of property in Bridgeport (property), the substitute defendant and cross claim plaintiff, Main Street Business Management, Inc. (Main Street), appeals from the trial court's judgment rendered against it on its cross claim alleging that the cross claim defendant, Manuel Moutinho, tortiously interfered with a business expectancy and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110 et seq. (CUTPA), and on its counterclaim alleging that the city engaged in tortious interference with a business expectancy and improperly sought to affect the property's value adversely by interfering with a proposed zone change.

On appeal, Main Street, as Greenwood's successor in interest, claims that the court improperly determined that (1) Moutinho did not tortiously interfere with a proposed sale of the property by Greenwood to the city, (2) the city did not tortiously interfere with the business relationship between Greenwood and Moutinho, and (3) the city did not tortiously interfere by causing the city's planning and zoning commission (commission) to reject a zoning reclassification that would have benefited Greenwood by increasing the property's marketability. We disagree and 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=3670

AC41213 - Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Frimel ("The defendant Sandra Frimel appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without the motion appearing on the short calendar and without permitting oral argument on the motion. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41702- Ditech Financial, LLC v. Joseph ("The self-represented defendant, Maud Joseph, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, MTGLQ Investors, L.P. (MTGLQ). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the named plaintiff, Ditech Financial, LLC (Ditech), lacked standing to commence this action, (2) improperly granted Ditech's motion to substitute, (3) lacked authority to render a judgment of strict foreclosure, and (4) improperly denied her motion for reargument. Because the resolution of the defendant's first claim as to standing is dependent on disputed factual findings that cannot be resolved due to an inadequate 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.")

AC40479- JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Virgulak ("In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, also known as M&T Bank (M&T Bank), appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant Theresa Virgulak. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to exercise its discretion in considering the plaintiff's foreclosure claim as a stand-alone claim independent from its other causes of action and failed to grant the plaintiff the equitable remedy of foreclosure, (2) declined to reform the mortgage deed, (3) denied its motion to amend its responses to the defendant's requests for admission, (4) concluded that its admissions limited its recovery under its unjust enrichment count, and (5) denied its motion for reargument. We disagree and 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=3659

AC42349 - Seminole Realty, LLC v. Sekretaev ("The present appeal has its genesis in a foreclosure action commenced by the plaintiff, Seminole Realty, LLC, in 2010.This court affirmed the 2014 judgment of strict foreclosure rendered against the self-represented defendant, Sergey Sekretaev, in Seminole Realty, LLC v. Sekretaev, 162 Conn. App. 167, 169, 131 A.3d 753 (2015), cert. denied, 320 Conn. 922, 132 A.3d 1095 (2016).Since that time, the defendant has filed at least five federal bankruptcy petitions and taken one bankruptcy appeal. The defendant's present appeal is from the trial court's judgment overruling his objection to the plaintiff's proposed execution of ejectment and denying his emergency motion for a stay of ejectment. On appeal, the defendant has raised numerous claims[2], but only two of them have not been raised previously, namely, that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by overruling his objection to the execution of ejectment and denying his emergency motion for a stay of execution of ejectment because title has not yet vested in the plaintiff and (2) erred in finding that his claims of financial and emotional damages were not of the plaintiff's making. We conclude that title vested in the plaintiff when the defendant failed to redeem his interest in the subject property following the sixty day extension of the law day. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the propriety of the order of ejectment and as to the denial of the defendant's emergency motion for a stay, and dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See footnote 2 of this opinion.")



("[2]The defendant also claims that the court erred in granting the execution of ejectment because (1) the underlying mortgage was made in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1639 (b) and (c), (2) he rescinded the underlying mortgage pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., (3) the judgment of strict foreclosure is void, and (4) the court violated Rule 60 (b) (4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to vacate the judgment of foreclosure. All of those claims are predicated on the validity of the underlying mortgage, which the plaintiff argues was adjudicated in the defendant's appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure. See Seminole Realty, LLC v. Sekretaev, supra, 162 Conn. App. 167.Although we agree with the plaintiff that the validity of the mortgage was decided in the defendant's prior appeal, the claims fail because title to the property has vested in the plaintiff. Accordingly, the claims are moot, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them.")



Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3635

AC41593 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fratarcangeli ("The defendant, Nicole M. Fratarcangeli, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered after a court trial in favor of the substitute plaintiff, MTGLQ Investors, LP. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred when it granted the substitute plaintiff's motion to strike as to her first and second special defenses of (1) illegal attestation of the mortgage deed and (2) unclean hands as to the attestation of the mortgage deed. We disagree 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=3624

AC41074 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Caldrello ("The self-represented defendant, Sandra Caldrello, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The defendant claims that (1) the court erred in concluding that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to the plaintiff's standing to foreclose the mortgage and rendering summary judgment as to liability in favor of the plaintiff, (2) after the court granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to liability but prior to the time that it rendered judgment of strict foreclosure, the court deprived her of her right to conduct additional discovery and her right to a new trial related to the fact that, following the rendition of summary judgment, the plaintiff attached a blank endorsement to the note at issue in this action, and (3) the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to strike two counts of her counterclaim alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3609

SC20067 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers ("This certified appeal calls upon the court to decide whether allegations that a mortgagee engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation and delay in postdefault loan modification negotiations before and after initiating a foreclosure action—thereby adding to the mortgagor's debt and frustrating the mortgagor's ability to avoid foreclosure—can establish legally sufficient special defenses and counterclaims in that action. The defendant mortgagor, Mitchell Piper, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff mortgagee, U.S. Bank National Association, following the trial court's decision striking the defendant's special defenses and counterclaims. See U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers, 177 Conn. App. 622, 638, 172 A.3d 837 (2017). The defendant's principal claim is that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that such allegations cannot establish legally sufficient special defenses or counterclaims because the misconduct alleged does not relate to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note or mortgage. We agree with the defendant and reverse the Appellate Court's judgment.")



Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3607

AC36115 - Moutinho v. 500 North Avenue, LLC ("The only defendant participating in this appeal, 500 North Avenue, LLC, appeals from the judgments of strict foreclosure, rendered after a court trial, in four jointly tried foreclosure actions commenced by the plaintiff, Manuel Moutinho, Trustee for the Mark IV Construction Company, Inc., 401 (K) Savings Plan. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred when it (1) failed to rule on the defendant's motion for a judgment of dismissal for failure to make out a prima facie case pursuant to Practice Book § 15-8 (motion to dismiss) at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, (2) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, and (3) denied, without cause, the defendant's right to make closing arguments or to file posttrial briefs in lieu of closing arguments pursuant to Practice Book § 15-5 (a). With respect to the defendant's first and second claims, we conclude that (1) such claims are not reviewable pursuant to our Supreme Court precedent and (2) in the alternative, they fail on the merits. With respect to the defendant's third claim, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.")



Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3592

AC41242 - IP Media Products, LLC v. Success, Inc.("In this appeal, the plaintiff, IP Media Products, LLC, brought a foreclosure action against the defendant, JD's Café I, Inc., seeking to enforce a mortgage and note that were conveyed and signed, respectively, by a purportedly different entity, namely, JD's Café I, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that it could not recover against the defendant because (1) the complaint contained no allegations against the defendant; (2) the entity that conveyed the mortgage and signed the note was not the named defendant; and (3) the mortgage and note were executed without the requisite corporate authority. As to the third claim, the plaintiff does not challenge the court's finding of lack of corporate authority, but argues for the first time on appeal that, because it is a holder in due course, this defense does not apply to it. We conclude that because this argument was not preserved, the plaintiff's third claim fails. Moreover, because we affirm the judgment of the trial court on this basis, we need not address the remainder of the plaintiff's claims.")




Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3566

SC20041 - Rockstone Capital, LLC v. Sanzo ("If a creditor forecloses on a debtor's home, the debtor might be entitled to keep a portion of the home's value, whatever the amount of the debt. This debtor protection, known as the homestead exemption, is available when the creditor forecloses on a judgment lien, but not on a consensual lien. See General Statutes § 52-352b (t). In this case, the plaintiff, Rockstone Capital, LLC (Rockstone), held judgment liens against the defendants John Sanzo and Maria Sanzo. The parties later agreed to a consensual lien in the form of a mortgage to secure the debt. Now, the Sanzos have defaulted on the mortgage payments, and Rockstone seeks to foreclose on the mortgage. The primary issue on appeal is whether the Sanzos are entitled to the homestead exemption. We conclude they are not.

...

The Sanzos petitioned this court for certification to appeal, which we granted, limited to the following issues: "1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the appeal and cross appeal were taken from a final judgment of the trial court? 2. If the answer to the first question is yes, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff's postjudgment mortgage encumbering the same property and the same debt as the plaintiff's judgment liens was a consensual lien, and not a de facto waiver of the homestead exemption; see General Statutes § 52-352b (t); that would be void as a matter of public policy?" Rockstone Capital, LLC v. Sanzo, 327 Conn. 968, 173 A.3d 391 (2017). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court with respect to its conclusions that the appeal was taken from a final judgment and that the mortgage was a consensual lien. We conclude that certification was improvidently granted with respect to whether the cross appeal was taken from a final judgment and dismiss that portion of the appeal.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3550

AC41014 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Ponger ("The defendant Theresa Ponger appeals from a judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court. On appeal, the defendant's principal claim is that the court erred when it concluded that the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust, for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL3, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-WL3, had provided notice of default and acceleration to her when it sent notice to the subject property addressed to her former spouse, Joseph R. Ponger (Ponger), who no longer resided at the property. Because the court correctly held that the notice requirement under the mortgage was satisfied because notice to one joint tenant or joint obligor constitutes notice to the others, 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=3543

AC41513 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Fitzpatrick ("The defendant Christopher M. Fitzpatrick appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss and from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee for MASTR 2007-2.On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to dismiss by concluding that the plaintiff had standing to commence and maintain its foreclosure action and (2) granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by determining that no genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to the plaintiff's standing and his special defenses of laches and unclean hands. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss and the summary judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3512

AC41185 - Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Kepple ("The defendants, Christine Kepple and Mark Kepple, appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Flagstar Bank, FSB. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action as a result of the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2 3 4 5