CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Coolbeth
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 572
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs CitiMortgage, Inc. foreclosed on defendants’ New Milford residence after they defaulted on a $396,000 note secured by a mortgage.
- Defendants Terry L. Coolbeth and Cheryl L. Coolbeth challenged liability and their counterclaim, asserting special defenses.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on liability and on the counterclaim after supplemental briefing and evidence.
- Key issue was whether mortgage broker and Citibank acted as agents of CitiMortgage, affecting defendants’ defenses.
- Court subsequently affirmed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for setting a new law day.
- Opinion discusses agency, fraud, unconscionability, and CUTPA as they relate to foreclosure defense
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency between plaintiff and broker/Citibank exists | Guffey affidavit and filings show no agency | Defendants show agency via mortgage broker/Citibank | Agency absence established; no genuine issue |
| Whether fraud/unconscionability support defenses fail | Defenses rely on non-admissible or unproven facts | Claims of misrepresentation and unfair practices persist | No genuine issue; defenses insufficient |
| Whether CUTPA claim survives | No unlawful practice proven | Yield spread premium and related conduct violate policy | CUTPA defense rejected; no material fact shown |
| Whether affidavit and HUD-1 evidence create genuine issue | Evidence shows no agency; affidavit competent | Affidavit and HUD-1 raise questions | No genuine issue; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Fidelity Bank v. Krenisky, 72 Conn. App. 700 (Conn. App. 2002) (fraud and unconscionability recognized in foreclosures)
- Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Machado, 83 Conn. App. 183 (Conn. App. 2004) (elements of fraud in foreclosure defenses)
- Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, 81 Conn. App. 798 (Conn. App. 2004) (agency crucial to defenses to foreclosure)
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn. App. 165 (Conn. App. 2013) (prima facie foreclosure showing when default admitted)
- Sic v. Nunan, 307 Conn. 399 (Conn. 2012) (summary judgment standard; burden on moving party)
- Callender v. Reflexite Corp., 143 Conn. App. 351 (Conn. App. 2013) (opponent must provide evidentiary foundation to show genuine issue)
- Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80 (Conn. 1992) (unconscionability standard in mortgage transactions)
- Norse Systems, Inc. v. Tingley Systems, Inc., 49 Conn. App. 582 (Conn. App. 1998) (courts disfavor speculation; need admissible evidence)