Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee v. Mauro
172 A.3d 303
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey and Renee Mauro executed a 2006 interest-only note ($350,000) and mortgage; they defaulted by 2009. AWL was the original lender; The Bank of New York Mellon (plaintiff) acquired the note and mortgage by endorsement/assignment in 2011.
- Plaintiff commenced foreclosure in June 2013; foreclosure mediation occurred in 2013 and the mediator reported the defendants did not appear for a scheduled session and returned the matter to the court.
- Defendants filed multiple iterations of special defenses and counterclaims alleging misrepresentations, CUTPA and TILA violations, some based on AWL’s pre-origination conduct and others on plaintiff’s conduct during the 2013 mediation.
- Trial court (Domnarski, J.) struck several special defenses and three counterclaim counts as improperly pleaded or time-barred, but allowed negligent/reckless/intentional misrepresentation counterclaims to proceed to the extent they alleged plaintiff’s conduct during mediation.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability (foreclosure) and to dismiss the counterclaims as time‑barred, targeting a nonparty’s conduct, or unrelated to the making/validity/enforcement of the note (Practice Book § 10-10 transaction test).
- Trial court (Aurigemma, J.) granted summary judgment for plaintiff on liability and concluded all five counterclaims failed as a matter of law: pre-origination claims against AWL were not cognizable against assignee and were time‑barred; mediation-based counterclaims failed the § 10-10 transaction test. Judgment of strict foreclosure followed. Defendants appealed and lost.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on foreclosure liability was proper | Plaintiff established prima facie case (holder of note, default, conditions precedent satisfied); no special defenses remained | Affidavits raised factual disputes (promises to modify, misapplied payments) that should preclude summary judgment | Affirmed — plaintiff met burden; defendants’ affidavit claims supported counterclaims, not defenses to foreclosure; no special defenses pending |
| Whether counterclaims based on AWL’s pre-origination conduct could proceed against assignee | Assignee not liable for predecessor’s misconduct absent an express assumption; many claims time‑barred | Defendants argued sufficiency and law-of-the-case from earlier denial in part of motion to strike | Affirmed — claims against AWL fail as matter of law because assignee did not expressly assume liability; pre‑origination claims time‑barred |
| Whether mediation‑based counterclaims are properly joined under Practice Book § 10‑10 | Mediation conduct occurred post‑default and does not reasonably relate to making/validity/enforcement of the note; thus improper under § 10‑10 | Mediation statements related to loan modification and enforcement of the obligation, so they have a reasonable nexus | Affirmed — mediation‑based claims fail the § 10‑10 transaction test (following Sorrentino) and were improperly joined; dismissal for improper joinder appropriate |
| Proper procedural characterization of dismissal (summary judgment v. strike) | Plaintiff used summary judgment to test legal sufficiency of counterclaims including improper joinder; court should be treated as having acted on a motion to strike for § 10‑10 issues | Defendants relied on earlier interlocutory rulings and procedural posture to argue error | Held that portion treated as motion to strike; dismissal construed as judgment of dismissal for improper joinder (not on merits) and defendants may replead in separate action unless barred |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn. v. Sorrentino, 158 Conn. App. 84 (Conn. App. 2015) (mediation‑based counterclaims lack reasonable nexus to making/validity/enforcement of mortgage/note under Practice Book § 10‑10)
- GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn. App. 165 (Conn. App. 2013) (summary judgment for liability in foreclosure proper when movant establishes prima facie case and no legally sufficient special defense exists)
- Hartford v. McKeever, 314 Conn. 255 (Conn. 2014) (assignee not liable for assignor’s obligations absent express assumption)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Aubut, 167 Conn. App. 347 (Conn. App. 2016) (assignee liability principles and related defenses in foreclosure context)
- Maltas v. Maltas, 298 Conn. 354 (Conn. 2010) (summary judgment burden and viewing evidence favorably to nonmoving party)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, Trustee v. Rodrigues, 109 Conn. App. 125 (Conn. App. 2008) (counterclaim may be stricken when it does not arise from same transaction as foreclosure complaint)
- Santorso v. Bristol Hosp., 308 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2013) (when summary judgment motion functions as a motion to strike, courts may treat it accordingly)