158 Conn.App. 371
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Castro purchased property in 2006, executing a note and mortgage; MERS was named mortgagee and the mortgage was later assigned to HSBC.
- Castro defaulted; HSBC initiated a foreclosure action in 2013 (pending at time of appeal).
- Castro filed a quiet title action (Oct. 28, 2013) alleging he was in adverse possession, not the legal titleholder.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing Castro had no legal title and could not show 15 years’ adverse possession.
- Trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding Castro could not invoke Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-31 because he lacked legal title; Castro appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff must hold legal title to bring a § 47-31 quiet title action | Castro: § 47-31 allows anyone claiming title or any interest to sue; legal title not required | Defs: plaintiff lacks standing because he does not hold legal title and cannot show adverse possession | Court: Reversed dismissal — § 47-31 permits a person claiming title or any interest to bring suit; legal title not required |
| Whether Castro’s pleaded adverse possession claim is sufficient on the face of the complaint | Castro: alleges adverse possession beginning Dec. 8, 2006 | Defs: Castro admitted occupying less than 15 years, so claim fails | Court: Although § 47-31 claim may ultimately fail, the motion to dismiss was improper because legal title is not a prerequisite; factual sufficiency can be tested by motion to strike or later proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education, 303 Conn. 402 (standing requires only a colorable claim of injury)
- Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. White, 278 Conn. 219 (Connecticut follows title theory of mortgages)
- Kramer v. Petisi, 53 Conn. App. 62 (elements of adverse possession include 15 years uninterrupted possession)
- Loewenberg v. Wallace, 147 Conn. 689 (insufficiency of plaintiff’s on-face title allegations may be attacked by motion to strike)
- Gager v. Carlson, 146 Conn. 288 (complaint to quiet title must state plaintiff’s ownership or interest and title)
- Tellar v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 114 Conn. App. 244 (motion to dismiss review — pleadings construed favorably to pleader)
- Ferreira v. Pringle, 255 Conn. 330 (pleaded factual allegations are judicial admissions)
- Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 317 Conn. 223 (summary judgment appropriate where complaint legally insufficient)