Bank of New York Mellon v. Mangiafico, 198 Conn.App. 722

Defendant executed a $672,000 promissory note (Feb 17, 2007) and an open-end mortgage on 35 Sullivan Farm Road; he stopped making payments beginning Feb 2008.
Plaintiff (The Bank of New York Mellon, assignee of the note and mortgage) filed a one-count mortgage foreclosure complaint on Aug 19, 2016; mortgage assigned to plaintiff on Aug 11, 2016.
Case entered foreclosure mediation; mediation ended unsuccessfully Feb 7, 2018; defendant filed answer and multiple special defenses on Feb 28, 2018.
Defendant’s notable defenses: statute of limitations under UCC § 42a-3-118 (six-year bar on enforcing a note) and inequitable/ bad-faith conduct in mediation (failure to provide appraisal, not participating in good faith).
Trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability (Dec 10, 2018) and later rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure (Jan 28, 2019); defendant appealed and this court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UCC § 42a-3-118 (six-year limitations on enforcing a note) bars the mortgage foreclosure action	§ 42a-3-118 applies only to enforcement of the note, not to foreclosure of the mortgage; foreclosure is an equitable remedy separate from an action on the note	The note and mortgage are inseparable; if the note is time-barred, the mortgage enforcement is also barred because the mortgage secures the note	Statute of limitations on the note does not bar a mortgage foreclosure; note and mortgage are separate instruments and causes of action (claim fails)
Whether defendant’s special defense alleging plaintiff’s inequitable conduct in mediation created a triable issue defeating summary judgment	Defendant failed to produce admissible, nonconclusory evidence showing conduct that bore on the making, validity, or enforcement of the note/mortgage	Plaintiff argued defendant’s affidavit and statements were conclusory and insufficient; mediator’s report was not submitted to the trial court and thus not considered	Special defense insufficient as a matter of law; defendant did not meet burden to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment properly granted

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806 (Conn. App. 2005) (statute of limitations on a note does not bar mortgage foreclosure)
New Milford Sav. Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251 (Conn. 1998) (note and mortgage are separate instruments and distinct causes of action)
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Blowers, 332 Conn. 656 (Conn. 2019) (clarifies what misconduct is sufficiently connected to the making, validity, or enforcement of a mortgage)
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Eichten, 184 Conn. App. 727 (Conn. App. 2018) (defendant bears burden to produce evidence supporting special defenses to defeat summary judgment)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ferraro, 194 Conn. App. 467 (Conn. App. 2019) (trial courts should not consider live testimony at a summary judgment hearing as part of the evidentiary submission)
Magee Ave., LLC v. Lima Ceramic Tile, LLC, 183 Conn. App. 575 (Conn. App. 2018) (same on consideration of live testimony at summary judgment)