AC45109 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof ("This foreclosure action returns to us on
remand from the Supreme Court. In our prior opinion,
this court rejected the various claims raised by the
defendants, Roger Essaghof and Katherine Marr-Essaghof, who had appealed 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 previous remand order of our
Supreme Court. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Assn. v. Essaghof, 217 Conn. App. 93, 95, 287 A.3d 1124
(2022), vacated, 346 Conn. 909, 288 A.3d 1031 (2023).
The defendants thereafter filed a petition for certification with the Supreme Court, in which they challenged
only this court’s conclusion that the trial court properly
had denied their motion to dismiss predicated on the
plaintiff’s alleged noncompliance with the notice
requirement of the Emergency Mortgage Assistance
Program (EMAP) set forth in General Statutes § 8-
265ee (a).
By order dated February 16, 2023, our Supreme Court
granted that petition, vacated the judgment of this court,
and remanded the case to us ‘with direction to reconsider in light of [its] decision in Bank of New York
Mellon v. Tope, 345 Conn. 662, 286 A.3d 891 (2022).’ See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof,
346 Conn. 909, 288 A.3d 1031 (2023). This court then
ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the
impact of that decision on the present appeal and heard
argument from the parties on April 25, 2023. On August
1, 2023, our Supreme Court released its decision in
KeyBank, N.A. v. Yazar, 347 Conn. 381, 297 A.3d 968
(2023), which concerns the proper statutory construction of the EMAP notice requirement codified in § 8-
265ee (a). Accordingly, this court ordered the parties
to file supplemental briefs on the impact of KeyBank,
N.A. v. Yazar, supra, 381, on this appeal. Having considered the defendants’ claim in light of the foregoing, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.")