Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope, 202 Conn.App. 540

Bank of New York Mellon (plaintiff) brought a foreclosure action against Achyut M. Tope (self-represented defendant) on a note originally payable to HSBC and endorsed to "JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee." The note was not further endorsed to the plaintiff.
The trial court entered and repeatedly opened/modified foreclosure judgments between 2014 and 2017; the operative reentered judgment was dated July 3, 2017.
Tope filed a motion to open and vacate the July 3, 2017 judgment on September 28, 2017, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing because it was not the holder or otherwise entitled to enforce the note; the motion was within four months of the operative judgment and was denied on October 17, 2017.
On appeal the majority treated Tope’s jurisdictional attack as a collateral, untimely attack on a final judgment and affirmed; Justice Devlin dissented, viewing the challenge as a direct jurisdictional attack and concluding the plaintiff had not proven authority to enforce the note.
The dissent notes the record lacks proof that JPMorgan Chase transferred enforcement rights to the plaintiff, rejects the plaintiff’s request to judicially notice a transfer document from the appellate appendix, and would remand for an evidentiary hearing on standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tope’s challenge to standing was a collateral attack	The challenge is collateral and untimely; judgment is final	The motion attacked the operative judgment within the court’s reopening period and is a direct jurisdictional challenge	Majority: treated as collateral and rejected; Dissent: direct, timely, should be considered and remanded
Whether plaintiff had standing to enforce the note (holder or nonholder entitled to enforce)	Plaintiff is successor trustee/holder entitled to enforce the note	Note endorsed to JPMorgan Chase as Trustee; plaintiff lacked endorsement or proof of transfer and thus lacked standing	Trial court found standing without adequate findings; Dissent: plaintiff did not prove right to enforce; remand for factfinding
Whether plaintiff’s appellate appendix transfer document may be judicially noticed	Document proves transfer of trusteeship and enforcement rights	Document was not in trial record, not proper for judicial notice, and defendant lacked opportunity to contest	Dissent: judicial notice inappropriate; document insufficient to establish transfer
Whether remand is required due to gaps in record on standing	No remand; majority affirmed judgment	Remand required for evidentiary hearing to resolve standing	Dissent: remand required for further proceedings to determine jurisdiction/standing

Monroe v. Monroe, 177 Conn. 173 (court discussed finality and limits on reopening judgments)
J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Properties, LLC, 309 Conn. 307 (UCC standards for persons entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument)
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Thompson, 163 Conn. App. 827 (standing may be considered on appeal where jurisdiction challenged; remand where record insufficient)
Ditech Fin., LLC v. Joseph, 192 Conn. App. 826 (remanded where record did not permit review of standing)
Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 310 Conn. 119 (standing and subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
Citibank, N.A. v. Lindland, 310 Conn. 147 (court’s jurisdiction over foreclosure may extend until supplemental distribution judgment)
Warner v. Brochendorff, 136 Conn. App. 24 (examples of collateral attacks on prior judgments)