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 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.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3497

AC40664 - U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Giblen ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant mortgagors, Gary M. Giblen, also known as Gary Giblen, and Anna-Marie L. Giblen, also known as Anna-Marie Giblen, appeal from the judgment of the trial court approving the sale of their 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 Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the trial court's approval of the sale of the subject property was void ab initio because it exceeded the scope of the Bankruptcy Court's order annulling the automatic stay that was triggered by the defendants' filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in approving the sale of the subject property because there were 'irregularities with the motion to approve the foreclosure sale' that were 'injurious' to them. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41113 - Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. Fitzpatrick ("The defendants, James R. Fitzpatrick and Marsha A. Fitzpatrick, appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) denied their motion to dismiss and rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale because the plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the note and mortgage, namely, compliance with the notice requirements, and (2) concluded that the defendants had not proved their special defense of laches. 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=3484

AC42225 - Wachovia Mortgage, FSB v. Toczek ("In this foreclosure action, the self-represented defendant, Aleksandra Toczek, appeals from the judgments of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to reset the law days and denying her motions to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and extend the law days and to reargue. On November 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous. On February 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed a second motion to dismiss this appeal as moot and the amended appeal as moot and frivolous. That motion followed this court's order of February 4, 2019, in which we raised the question of whether the trial court's order resetting the law days should be summarily reversed as being in contravention of the appellate stay. After considering the parties' written submissions on that question and hearing oral argument on the matter, we conclude that, under binding authority from our Supreme Court, the trial court acted in contravention of the appellate stay when it reset the law days. We, therefore, deny the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal and reverse the court's judgment granting the plaintiff's motion to reset the law days and setting the law days. We agree, however, that the defendant's amended appeal is frivolous and, therefore, grant the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the amended appeal.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3463

AC40325 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Grogins ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants, David Grogins, executor of the estate of Anna S. Grogins, and David Grogins and Malcolm L. Grogins, trustees of the Susan Grogins Trust, appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust. On appeal, the defendants argue that the court abused its discretion in denying their motion to open because the court improperly applied the procedural requirements set forth in General Statutes § 52-212 and, in so doing, erroneously found that there was no good cause to open the judgment of strict foreclosure. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3392

AC40039 - Bank of New York Mellon v. Ruttkamp ("The defendant, Shlomit Ruttkamp, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, The Bank of New York Mellon formerly known as The Bank of New York, as Trustee on Behalf of CIT Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing and (2) improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the defendant's counterclaim, which alleged that the plaintiff wrongfully failed to release the notice of lis pendens it had recorded on the land records of the subject property. We affirm the judgment of strict foreclosure.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3366

AC40883 - Stamford v. Rahman ("The defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), appeals from the judgment of the trial court opening the supplemental judgment that had been rendered in its favor and, thereafter, rendering a supplemental judgment in favor of the defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (Wells Fargo), in the amount of $348,097.16. On appeal, Bank of America claims that the court erred in granting Wells Fargo's motion to open the supplemental judgment more than four months after it was rendered on the basis of fraud committed by a homeowner in securing multiple mortgages years before this action to foreclose a blight lien commenced. We agree that the court erred and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3359

AC41378 - Connecticut Community Bank, N.A. v. Kiernan ("The plaintiff, Connecticut Community Bank, N.A., doing business as the Greenwich Bank & Trust Company, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding what it claims to be an allegedly insufficient amount of attorney's fees after finding the defendant James T. Kiernan, Jr., liable pursuant to a mortgage note that he executed in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court erred by excluding from its award any attorney's fees that it had incurred in protecting the priority of its mortgage as to a subsequent encumbrancer, M&T Bank, formerly known as Hudson City Savings Bank (M&T Bank), which it had brought into this action as a defendant on its claim of interpleader. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3335

AC40405 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Gonzalez ("The defendant William Gonzalez appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by concluding that he had failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the mortgage broker was an agent or employee of the original mortgagee and concluding, on that basis, that he had failed to prove any of his special defenses, all of which were based on the alleged conduct of the broker. The defendant further claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that he had failed to sustain his burden of proving that the mortgage was unconscionable. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40408 - People's United Bank, National Assn. v. Purcell ("The defendant Kevin Purcell appeals following the trial court's denial of his motion to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale and to dismiss the action. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court should have dismissed the action because it lacked personal jurisdiction over him due to insufficient service of process on him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3299

AC40229 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tarzia ("This is the third appeal in this foreclosure action to reach this court in the nearly ten years this matter has been litigated. The named defendant Joseph S. Tarzia appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to open and vacate the court's judgment of strict foreclosure. Although the self-represented defendant's appellate brief is not a model of clarity, we construe his claims to be that the court (1) erred by denying his motion to open and vacate based on new evidence of fraud (2) erred by concluding that the plaintiff possessed the note when it filed this foreclosure action and (3) violated his right to due process by failing to view his case in its entirety as mandated by the mosaic rule. We disagree.")


1 2 3 4