CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Gaudiano, 142 Conn. App. 440

Gaudiano appeals a strict foreclosure judgment after denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
CitiMortgage, Inc. seeks foreclosure on 18 Woodrow Street, Stamford, alleging it holds the note and mortgage.
Note and mortgage executed March 9, 2004; plaintiff became holder of the note on July 29, 2005.
Defendant defaulted on the note; plaintiff commenced foreclosure in spring 2010.
An evidentiary hearing upheld plaintiff’s standing based on the note’s chain of endorsements and internal records.
Trial court concluded CitiMortgage had standing under § 49-17 to foreclose, and judgment of strict foreclosure was entered on April 30, 2012.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff had standing to foreclose under § 49-17.	CitiMortgage was holder of the note before action.	Plaintiff lacked valid assignment of the note in land records.	Yes, plaintiff had standing under § 49-17.
Whether the land-records chain of title controls the standing question.	Records show holder status; land records not determinative.	Land records control; misalignment with chain of title creates lack of standing.	Court declined to treat land records as controlling; credible evidence supported standing.

Bellman v. West Hartford, 96 Conn. App. 387 (2006) (favoring pleadings in dismissal standard; record may include affidavits)
Megin v. New Milford, 125 Conn. App. 35 (2010) (plenary review of standing questions)
Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570 (2010) (§ 49-17 permits foreclosure by noteholder before assignment)
Suresky v. Sweedler, 140 Conn. App. 800 (2013) (clear error standard for factual standing findings)
Bowen v. Serksnas, 121 Conn. App. 503 (2010) (defer to trial court’s credibility determinations on standing)
MERS v. Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, Lehman (various) (2010) (discussed in context of endorsements and assignments affecting mortgage/m note)