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 Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=770

AC38712 - GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford ("The self-represented defendant in this residential mortgage foreclosure action, Eric M. Ford, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 (Wells Fargo), to open a judgment of strict foreclosure and to extend the law days, and denying the defendant's motion to open the judgment. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 790, 190 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2015), the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to open and denying his motion to open; and (2) the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action. 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=747

AC40186 - Sovereign Bank v. Licata ("In this protracted foreclosure matter, the defendant Cynthia Licata appeals following the trial court's denial of her motion asking the court to clarify the 'status' of a judgment of strict foreclosure that was rendered orally in open court, more than ten years earlier, and from the trial court's order making copies of the transcripts of the relevant underlying proceedings a part of the court file. The plaintiff Seven Oaks Partners, LP, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal is moot and the decisions from which the defendant appealed do not constitute appealable final judgments. The defendant opposes the motion to dismiss. Because we agree that there is no practical relief that can be afforded to the defendant in this matter due to the fact that title to the property at issue has long since passed unconditionally to the plaintiff, we grant the plaintiff's motion and dismiss the appeal as moot.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=726

AC39219 - U.S. Bank National Assn., Trustee v. Blowers ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Mitchell Piper, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of the First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FF10. On appeal, Piper claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ special defenses and counterclaims. Specifically, he contends that the court improperly required the special defenses to directly relate to and the counterclaims to have a sufficient nexus to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note and mortgage. Instead, Piper argues, the court should have applied a ‘straightforward version of the transaction test with allowances for equitable considerations’ to both the special defenses and counterclaims. Additionally, Piper claims that even if the court did not err in applying the making, validity, or enforcement requirement, the counterclaims and special defenses should have survived a motion to strike under a broad reading of the term ‘enforcement.’ Finally, Piper claims that the court erred in its determinations that no binding modification to the defendants’ loan existed, that, if such modification existed, the defendants defaulted on the loan, and that all of the plaintiff’s alleged misconduct took place during foreclosure mediation. We disagree with Piper contentions 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=707

AC38970Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee v. Mauro ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants, Jeffrey J. Mauro and Renee A. Mauro, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court, Aurigemma, J., in favor of the plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon, on: the plaintiff's claim for strict foreclosure as to the defendants' mortgaged property in Killingworth, Connecticut; and the defendants' counterclaims against the plaintiff, seeking damages and equitable relief based upon alleged misrepresentations to them and other alleged misdealings with them concerning the note and mortgage here at issue, both by the plaintiff and by the original lender, America's Wholesale Lender (AWL), which was the plaintiff's predecessor in interest to the note and mortgage. As to the plaintiff's claim for strict foreclosure, the defendants argue that the court erred in basing its judgment for the plaintiff upon its prior, erroneous decision rendering summary judgment for the plaintiff as to the defendants' liability for foreclosure in this action, assertedly without sufficient evidence to establish the absence of any genuine issues of material fact on that issue. As to their counterclaims against the plaintiff, the defendants argue that, to the extent that such counterclaims are based upon the plaintiff's own alleged misdealings with them rather than those of AWL, the court erred in rendering summary judgment for the plaintiff by: (1) ruling that such counterclaims, so narrowed, were not properly pleaded in this action because they have no reasonable nexus to the making, validity, or enforcement of the subject note and mortgage; (2) ruling that one such counterclaim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) failing to follow the prior ruling of a different judicial authority, in partially denying a motion to strike, that certain such counterclaims were legally sufficient to state claims upon which relief could be granted. We disagree with the defendants on each of their claims, and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=691

AC38736 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants Roger Essaghof and Katherine Marr-Essaghof appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, and from the court's entry of a posttrial financial order. The defendants claim that the court (1) erred in rejecting their special defenses of fraudulent inducement and unclean hands, and (2) abused its discretion in ordering them to reimburse the plaintiff for property taxes paid by the plaintiff during the pendency of this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39315 - Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Speer ("The plaintiff in error, Edward Bona, brings this writ of error to challenge the decisions of the trial court granting the motions of the defendant in error, Seaport Capital Partners, LLC (Seaport), for order of payment, and denying Bona's motions to reargue the order of payment. Bona claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) improperly granted Seaport's motions for order of payment, and (3) improperly denied Bona's motions to reargue. We disagree with Bona and, accordingly, dismiss the writ of error.")

  • AC39315 - Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Spear (see Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Speer)
  • AC39315- Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. 76 – 78 Truman Street, LLC (see Seaport Capital Partners, LLC v. Speer)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=688

AC30037 - Citimortgage, Inc. v. Tanasi ("The defendants, Richard Tanasi and Athanasula S. Casberg Tanasi, appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the court in favor of the plaintiff, CitiMortgage, Inc. The defendants claim that the court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the foreclosure action because the plaintiff (1) lacked standing to commence foreclosure proceedings, (2) improperly relied on a document as a basis for standing, and (3) committed fraud warranting dismissal of the action with prejudice. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=655

AC38960 - Financial Freedom Acquisition, LLC v. Griffin ("In this action to foreclose a reverse mortgage, the defendants, Ann T. Griffin, in her representative capacity as executrix of the estate of Angela C. Griffin, and Ann T. Griffin, in her individual capacity, appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, OneWest Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in (1) concluding that the substitute plaintiff established a prima facie case of foreclosure and (2) rejecting their special defense and counterclaim sounding in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=625

AC38176 - Rockstone Capital, LLC v. Sanzo (Foreclosure; homestead exemption statute (§ 52-352b [t]); amendment of complaint to foreclose mortgage instead of judgment liens; jurisdiction to hear appealable final judgment; "The plaintiff, Rockstone Capital, LLC, appeals and the defendants, John Sanzo and Maria Sanzo, cross appeal from the judgment of the trial court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in not foreclosing its mortgage on the defendants' property and in applying the homestead exemption to its judgment liens, for which foreclosure was not sought. In their cross appeal, in part agreeing with the plaintiff, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in entering a judgment of foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff as to the judgment liens. As to the plaintiff's appeal, we reverse the judgment of the trial court that determined that the mortgage was void as against public policy and remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with law. We also reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the defendants' cross appeal.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=613

AC38563 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Henderson ("In this foreclosure action, the self-represented defendant, Genevieve Henderson, appeals from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The defendant claims that (1) the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had standing to foreclose, and (2) she was deprived of due process of law in connection with several motions that she brought during the course of the litigation. We conclude that the defendant's claims lack merit and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")



Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=571

AC39080 - Bank of New York, Trustee v. Savvidis ("The defendants Athina Savvidis and Anastasios Savvidis appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure reentered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of New York, as trustee, following the lifting of a bankruptcy stay. On appeal, the defendants contend that the trial court improperly relied on an affidavit furnished by the plaintiff in calculating the outstanding debt. 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=553

AC39007 - Santander Bank, N.A. v. Godek ("The self-represented defendant in this residential mortgage foreclosure action, Elizabeth A. Godek (also known as Allison E. Murray), appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered against her in favor of the plaintiff, Santander Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant appears to raise issues regarding the court's judgment of foreclosure and its denial of her motion to open. We are unable to discern the analysis of the issues raised on appeal. Nothing that the defendant has written in her appellate briefs persuades us of the existence of any error committed by the trial court, much less reversible error.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=542

AC38252 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Chainani ("In this appeal from a judgment of strict foreclosure after a trial, the defendant, Steven Chainani, challenges the applicability of Practice Book § 23-18 (a), under which the plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A., was permitted to establish the amount of the debt at issue via an affidavit of debt, rather than through the presentation of live testimony from witnesses. The defendant's arguments implicate two affidavits that were admitted at separate hearings; however, his claims attack only the use of these affidavits to the extent they were used to establish the amount of the debt, for which the court used only the second affidavit. The relevant affidavit was admitted at a hearing to determine the form of the judgment and was used to determine the amount of the debt pursuant to § 23-18 (a). The defendant argues that the trial court erred because § 23-18 (a) was not applicable to this case. He asserts that this was not harmless error because the affidavit was the only evidence offered to establish the amount of the debt. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the affidavit was admitted properly under § 23-18 (a) and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Judicial Branch Now Publishing Headnotes for its Supreme & Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=534

The Judicial Branch has announced that it is now publishing a syllabus (headnote) at the top of each Supreme and Appellate Court opinion:

The Judicial Branch is now posting online headnotes for both Supreme and Appellate Court opinions. These headnotes, which accompany individual Supreme and Appellate Court decisions, include a short summary of the ruling and the procedural history of a case. The Reporter of Judicial Decisions prepares the headnotes, which are not part of the opinion. As such, the opinion alone should be relied upon for the reasoning behind the decision [Emphasis added].

Subscribe to a case law category (or categories) of your choice through our Email Digest or RSS delivery services to receive the latest cases from the Supreme or Appellate Courts delivered directly to your inbox.


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=531

AC38489 - Bank of New York Mellon v. Talbot ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant James W. Talbot appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale, rendered 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 2007-OH3, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OH3. The defendant claims on appeal that the court abused its discretion because the judgment of foreclosure by sale was predicated on a default that had been entered in error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=494

AC38840 - Reserve Realty, LLC v. BLT Reserve, LLC (Foreclosure; broker's lien; "In this action to foreclose a real estate broker's lien, the plaintiffs, The Reserve Realty, LLC (Reserve Realty) and Theodore Haddad, Sr., as executor of the estate of Jeanette Haddad, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant BLT Reserve, LLC (BLT). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that (1) the purchase and sale agreement upon which they based their claim for brokerage fees constituted part of an illegal tying arrangement in violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act, (2) the listing agreements entered into pursuant to such purchase and sale agreement did not comply with General Statutes § 20-325a, and (3) such listing agreements were unenforceable by the plaintiffs because they were personal to Jeanette Haddad. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38442 - Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC (Foreclosure; broker's lien;"In this action to foreclose a real estate broker's lien, the plaintiffs, The Reserve Realty, LLC (Reserve Realty) and Theodore Haddad, Sr., as executor of the estate of Jeanette Haddad, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Windemere Reserve, LLC (Windemere). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that (1) the purchase and sale agreement upon which they base their claim for brokerage fees constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act, (2) the listing agreements entered into pursuant to such purchase and sale agreement did not comply with General Statutes § 20-325a, and (3) such listing agreements were unenforceable by the plaintiffs because they were personal to Jeanette Haddad. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38239 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Owen (Foreclosure; motion for default for failure to plead; "The defendants Marlene E. Owen and William S. Owen appeal from the denial of their motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The defendants claim that the court abused its discretion in denying their motion because they showed good cause to warrant opening the judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Research Guides Updated in April 2017

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=434

Two foreclosure law research guides were updated in April and have been posted to our research guides page.

You can visit our Law about Foreclosure page for all of our available foreclosure research guides.


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=429

AC38051 - Bank of America, National Assn. v. La Mesa ("The defendant Michael La Mesa appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of America, National Association. The sole issue on appeal is whether the defendant's April 22, 2015 notice of rescission, sent pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38638 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Nelson ("The self-represented defendant Moses Nelson appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the underlying strict foreclosure judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Bank of America Funding Corporation 2007-1. On appeal, the defendant makes a variety of claims challenging the court's rulings on his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and motion to dismiss the underlying strict foreclosure action.

"After reviewing and considering the record in this case, the briefs and the arguments of the parties on appeal, we conclude that the court properly denied the defendant's motion to open because once the law day passed the title of the property vested in the plaintiff and not the defendant....")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=416

AC38413 - Glastonbury v. Sakon ("The defendant John Alan Sakon appeals from the orders of the trial court striking his special defenses and from the judgment of nonsuit entered with respect to his counterclaims. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion to strike his original and his substitute special defenses and counterclaims. The appeal is dismissed in part, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part.")

AC38622 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cam ("The defendant Eugene A. Cam appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure claiming that the trial court erred when it concluded that a settlement agreement he had entered into with the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., permitted the plaintiff to pay the defendant a certain sum of money within a 'reasonable time' of the payment deadline provided in the agreement. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=358

SC19560, SC19561 - Burns v. Adler ("The primary issue that we must resolve in this certified appeal is whether the bad faith exception to the bar on the enforcement of home improvement contracts that do not comply with the Home Improvement Act (act), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., entitled the plaintiff contractor, James E. Burns, Jr., to recover damages from the defendant homeowner, David Y. Adler, for home improvement services despite the plaintiff's noncompliance with that statute. The parties entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to furnish materials and supply labor in connection with the renovation of a residence owned by the defendant in the town of Salisbury. After the renovation project was largely complete, a dispute arose regarding amounts that the defendant owed the plaintiff for services performed. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought this action claiming, among other things, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The defendant raised the special defense that the plaintiff's claims were barred because the agreement did not comply with the requirements of General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 20-429. In turn, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was precluded from relying on § 20-429 because his refusal to pay the plaintiff was in bad faith. After a trial to the court, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had incurred damages in the amount of $214,039 and that § 20-429 did not bar recovery because the defendant's refusal to pay was in bad faith. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $214,039. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Burns v. Adler, 158 Conn. App. 766, 808, 120 A.3d 555 (2015). We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) 'Did . . . § 20-429 (f) abrogate the bad faith exception to the [act] created in Habetz v. Condon, 224 Conn. 231, 240, 618 A.2d 501 (1992)?'; and (2) 'Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff?' Burns v. Adler, 319 Conn. 931, 125 A.3d 205 (2015); see also footnote 7 of this opinion. We conclude that the first certified question is not reviewable because it was not raised in the trial court. We further conclude that the defendant did not act in bad faith and, therefore, the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff was barred from invoking the protection of the act. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and conclude that the case must be remanded to the trial court with direction to render judgment for the defendant.")


1 2