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=5101

AC43121 - CIT Bank, N.A. v. Francis ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Johanna Francis appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, CIT Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order regarding certain discovery requests, thereby preventing her from pursuing her special defenses. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

  • AC43121 Concurrence - CIT Bank, N.A. v. Francis


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5091

AC44964 - Wilmington Trust, National Assn. v. N'Guessan ("The defendant Victor K. N'Guessan appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wilmington Trust. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without considering the applicability of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel and (2) abused its discretion by sustaining the plaintiff's objections to his interrogatories and requests for production. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5062

AC44132 - GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Catale ("In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Vito Catale and Maria Catale appeal from the trial court's granting of an amended 'ex parte' application for a prejudgment remedy (ex parte application) filed by the original plaintiff, GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Association as Legal Title Trustee. The defendants claim that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's ex parte application because (1) certain statutorily required affidavits either were missing or insufficient and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the ex parte application, and (2) even if the court had jurisdiction over the ex parte application, the court deprived the defendants of due process by granting it without providing the defendants with a postattachment hearing at which they would have had an opportunity to challenge both whether probable cause existed to order a prejudgment remedy and in what amount. . . we affirm the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5050

AC45003 - U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Dallas ("The defendant Lesley Dallas appeals following the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered against her in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, in this residential mortgage foreclosure action. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only because it erred in determining that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the defendant's special defenses of residential mortgage fraud and fraud in the inducement. 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=5041

AC44819 - Milford v. Recycling, Inc. ("Foreclosure of municipal tax lien; denial of motion to open judgment; "In this municipal tax lien foreclosure action, the defendant Donna Stewart, Trustee, appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the objection of the plaintiff, the city of Milford, and denying her motion to open the existing judgment of foreclosure and to extend the sale date ordered therein. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in concluding that, considering the equities advanced by both parties for the court's consideration, the balancing of those equities favored the plaintiff. In response, the plaintiff argues that the judgment of the court should be affirmed because the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that those equities favored the plaintiff. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4876

AC44437 - Cummings Enterprise, Inc. v. Moutinho ("The plaintiff, Cummings Enterprise, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing for lack of standing its foreclosure action brought against the defendant, Manuel Moutinho, Trustee for the Mark IV Construction Co., Inc., 401 (K) Savings Plan. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action because any mortgage interest that the plaintiff once may have held with respect to the subject property, an undeveloped building lot in Stratford, had been foreclosed in an earlier foreclosure action brought by the defendant. Because the plaintiff, who was defaulted for failure to appear in the prior foreclosure action, made no effort to redeem on or before its designated law day, its mortgage interest was extinguished, and, after all law days had passed, title to the property vested in the defendant, leaving the property no longer subject to the plaintiff's mortgage. On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of convoluted arguments challenging the court's granting of the motion to dismiss. On the basis of our thorough review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we conclude that the plaintiff's arguments are devoid of merit. Accordingly, 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=4855

AC44905 - Stratford v. 500 North Avenue, LLC (Foreclosure of municipal tax liens; "This is an appeal by the defendant 500 North Avenue, LLC, from a judgment of foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Stratford. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant lacks standing to maintain the appeal because it no longer owns the property at issue and, therefore, is not aggrieved by the judgment. Although the defendant concedes that it has no ownership interest in the property, it opposes the motion on the ground that it is aggrieved by the possible collateral consequences of the judgment. Specifically, the defendant argues that the judgment establishes its underlying tax obligations to the plaintiff and could be used by the plaintiff to establish the defendant's liability in a future, independent action by the plaintiff to collect unpaid taxes not satisfied by a judgment in this case. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the defendant is not aggrieved by the judgment and, therefore, lacks standing to pursue this appeal. As a result, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4806

SC20493 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Madison ("The defendant Margit Madison appeals, upon our grant of her petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's latest judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust 2007-1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1. The trial court reentered judgment of strict foreclosure following the termination of the defendant's bankruptcy stay. In this court, the defendant challenges the Appellate Court's conclusion that the trial court properly ruled that she lacked standing in this foreclosure action to raise a defense that she had failed to identify as an asset of the bankruptcy estate in the schedule of assets she filed in her chapter 7 bankruptcy case, adjudicated while the foreclosure case was pending. The defendant argues more specifically that the Appellate Court improperly treated a defense to a foreclosure action as the same as claims and counterclaims, which constitute property of the estate under the United States Bankruptcy Code and, thus, must be disclosed. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4793

SC20403 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Virgulak ("The plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court in favor of the defendant Theresa Virgulak. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court because (1) the trial court improperly declined the plaintiff's request to reform a mortgage deed to reference that the mortgage deed executed by the defendant was given to secure a note executed by her husband, Robert J. Virgulak (Robert), and (2) even if the trial court properly denied the request to reform the mortgage deed, it incorrectly determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to foreclose the mortgage executed by the defendant because the defendant was not a borrower on the note. We disagree with the plaintiff and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4785

AC44450 - LendingHome Marketplace, LLC v. Traditions Oil Group, LLC ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant, Traditions Oil Group, LLC, which was defaulted for failure to appear, appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, LendingHome Marketplace, LLC, and from the denial of its subsequent motion to reargue/reconsider that ruling. Although the defendant filed its motion to open more than one year after the passage of the law day set by the court, the defendant nonetheless claims that the court improperly denied its motions because (1) the passing of the law day did not vest absolute title to the subject property in the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with notice requirements in the court's uniform foreclosure standing orders and Practice Book § 17-22; (2) the court's finding that the plaintiff had complied with those notice requirements was clearly erroneous; (3) the court failed to hold a hearing on the motion to open in violation of the defendant's right to due process; and (4) the court abused its discretion by summarily denying the defendant's motion to reargue. We conclude that the court properly denied the defendant's motions and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4766

AC43295 - Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Mordecai (Claim that trial court 1.) abused its discretion by denying defendants' request to amend answer and special defenses, 2.) improperly grant summary judgment as to liability and 3.) improperly rendered strict foreclosure judgment; "The defendants, Michael A. Mordecai and Elizabeth M. Keyser, appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society, F.S.B., D/B/A Christiana Trust, not individually but as trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust (Wilmington). The defendants claim that the court (1) abused its discretion by denying their request to amend their special defenses, (2) improperly granted summary judgment as to liability because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether they had defaulted on the note, and (3) misapplied Practice Book § 23-18 (a) in rendering a judgment of strict foreclosure because they had asserted a defense regarding the amount of the debt owed. We agree with the defendants that the court abused its discretion by not allowing them to amend their special defenses and, consequently, also improperly granted the motion for summary judgment as to liability and rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure without due consideration of those defenses. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4748

AC43835 - Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Gallant ("The defendant Real M. Gallant appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court and from the court's denial of his motion to dismiss this foreclosure action, which had been commenced by the original plaintiff, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Bayview), the assignee of a note and mortgage that had been executed by the defendant with respect to certain real property located in Brooklyn. The defendant claims that (1) the trial court, after holding an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss, improperly determined that the substitute plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (U.S. Bank), has standing to maintain this action, even though the original note was not produced in court, and that the requirements of General Statutes § 42a-3-309, which governs lost instruments, had been satisfied because 'all reasonable attempts' had been made to locate the lost note before a lost note affidavit was created, and (2) a fraud was perpetrated on the trial court, which necessitates a reversal of the foreclosure judgment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4742

SC20194 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lorson (Foreclosure; special defenses; whether Appellate Court properly held that noncompliance with regulations promulgated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development is a special defense that a defendant must plead and prove: "The issue that we must resolve in this appeal is whether compliance with federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulatory requirements applicable to mortgage loans guaranteed or insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is a condition precedent to acceleration of the debt, enforcement of the note, and foreclosure of the mortgage, such that the burden is on mortgagees to plead and prove compliance. . . We conclude that compliance with applicable HUD regulations is a condition precedent to enforcement of the note and foreclosure of the mortgage, and must be pleaded and ultimately proved by the mortgagee. Because the trial court did not require the plaintiff to establish compliance with HUD regulations at trial, we further conclude that the case must be remanded to the trial court for a trial on that issue. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4717

AC42530 - Mase v. Riverview Realty Associates, LLC ("The defendant Riverview Realty Associates, LLC, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Amy Mase. The defendant claims that (1) the court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the foreclosure action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to provide notice of default and acceleration in accordance with the terms of the subject note and mortgage, (2) the judgment of strict foreclosure was grossly defective for several reasons, including but not limited to, the court's failure to determine the fair market value of the subject premises and the amount of the debt, and (3) the court's appointment of a receiver was improper for several reasons. We dismiss the appeal because it was not taken from a final judgment.")


Foreclosure Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4713

SC20534 - Toro Credit Co. v. Zeytoonjian ("In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered a foreclosure by sale as to two parcels of land owned by the defendants, Betty Anne Zeytoonjian, as trustee of the Nubar Realty Trust, and Three Z Limited Partnership, and secured by a blanket mortgage given to the plaintiff, Toro Credit Company. The parties' mortgage agreement contains a remedies provision that provides that, in the event the defendants default on the mortgage, the plaintiff could seek a foreclosure by sale as to both parcels. The trial court determined that the remedies provision was not binding on it but, nonetheless, considered this contractual provision as one factor in its balancing of the equities under General Statutes § 49-24. The defendants claim that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a foreclosure by sale as to their two properties because (1) the court should not have considered the remedies provision at all, and (2) it was inequitable for the court to order a foreclosure by sale as to both parcels when a strict foreclosure as to one parcel would have fully satisfied the debt. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the plaintiff's request for a foreclosure by sale under these circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order of foreclosure by sale.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4665

AC43704 - Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Sheldon ("In this foreclosure action, the substitute plaintiff, PHH Mortgage Corporation, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Sandra A. Sheldon and James J. Sheldon. On appeal, the substitute plaintiff claims that, in concluding that the defendants prevailed on their special defense of unclean hands, the court (1) made a clearly erroneous factual finding that a predecessor of the substitute plaintiff failed to 'restore' the defendants' credit following its own error, and (2) improperly determined that the balancing of the equities prevented foreclosure. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4662

SC20492 - Scholz v. Epstein (Litigation privilege; absolute immunity from statutory theft claim; "In this certified appeal, we are asked to determine the scope of the litigation privilege, which provides absolute immunity from liability, in relation to a lawyer's conduct in a foreclosure proceeding. The plaintiff, Stephen W. Scholz, appeals from the Appellate Court's judgment affirming the trial court's dismissal of the statutory theft claim he brought against the defendant, Juda J. Epstein, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of absolute immunity. Epstein, an attorney licensed to practice law in Connecticut, represented Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. (Benchmark), in the underlying foreclosure proceeding. The plaintiff claims that, under the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the defendant enjoyed absolute immunity from the plaintiff's claim of statutory theft, specifically, by determining that (1) public policy considerations were served by affording the defendant this immunity, and (2) all of the defendant's alleged conduct occurred within the scope of the underlying foreclosure proceeding. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


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.")