Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cornelius
154 A.3d 79
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- 2001: H. Thomas Cornelius executed a $216,000 note secured by an open‑end mortgage on property in West Hartford; the note/mortgage were assigned over time, and H. Thomas later quitclaimed the property to his son, Frederick B. Cornelius (defendant).
- 2010: Plaintiff Deutsche Bank received an assignment of the note and mortgage. 2013: Deutsche Bank filed this foreclosure complaint; defendant appeared pro se.
- 2014: Plaintiff obtained a default for failure to plead, defendant’s first motion to open was granted, but a second default was entered when defendant again failed to file a responsive pleading.
- Defendant filed a motion to strike (arguing lack of notice of default under the mortgage) and later moved to open the second default claiming lack of notice/hearing and that he promptly filed a motion to strike.
- At hearings in December 2014 the plaintiff produced the original note, mortgage, and dated assignments; the court reviewed those documents and found plaintiff had standing to prosecute the foreclosure.
- Court denied the motion to strike as inoperative while default stood, denied the motion to open the second default for lack of good cause, and rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (subject‑matter jurisdiction): Did plaintiff possess/enforce the note when suit commenced? | Deutsche Bank produced the note (endorsed in blank) and dated assignments showing it held the note before suit; creates prima facie standing. | Cornelius argued plaintiff failed to prove it owned/held the note before filing, so court lacked jurisdiction. | Held: Plaintiff established standing by producing the note and assignments; defendant offered no rebuttal. |
| Motion to strike based on mortgage notice provision: Does plaintiff’s alleged failure to give mortgage‑specified notice deprive court of jurisdiction? | Plaintiff: Mortgage notice requirement is a contractual condition, not a jurisdictional prerequisite; court may adjudicate rights regardless. | Cornelius: Failure to give required notice is a condition precedent that deprives the court of jurisdiction and warranted striking the complaint. | Held: Mortgage notice provision does not implicate subject‑matter jurisdiction; motion to strike was inoperative while default remained. |
| Whether trial court had to decide motion to strike before rendering default judgment (statutory timing under § 52‑121 / Practice Book) | Plaintiff: Court properly declined to consider the merits of the motion to strike while a default was in effect. | Cornelius: § 52‑121 requires the court to consider a motion to strike even after default but before judgment. | Held: Court correctly refused to consider the motion to strike while default stood; default admits the complaint’s material facts and bars further defenses until set aside. |
| Motion to open second default: Did defendant show good cause to set aside default? | Plaintiff: Defendant failed to show mistake, excusable neglect, or other good cause; his filings (a motion to strike) do not automatically set aside default. | Cornelius: Default was invalid because he received no notice/hearing and he filed a responsive motion shortly after entry. | Held: Court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to demonstrate good cause or prejudice to justify setting aside the second default. |
Key Cases Cited
- Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 310 Conn. 119 (Conn. 2013) (trial court may determine standing from copies of note and assignment presented at hearing)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Bliss, 159 Conn. App. 483 (Conn. App. 2015) (possession of note endorsed in blank is prima facie evidence of holder status; defendant must rebut)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Thompson, 163 Conn. App. 827 (Conn. App. 2016) (record deficiencies can preclude appellate review of standing when no documentation or findings exist)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Bertrand, 140 Conn. App. 646 (Conn. App. 2013) (noting potential plain error if court refuses to accept an untimely pleading solely because of default timing)
- Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Avidon, 161 Conn. App. 822 (Conn. App. 2015) (standards for setting aside default; trial court discretion considering totality of circumstances)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Lighthouse Landings, Inc., 279 Conn. 90 (Conn. 2006) (timing rules in Practice Book do not necessarily implicate subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (Conn. 2009) (distinguishing when statutory notice is jurisdictional)
- LaReau v. Reincke, 158 Conn. 486 (Conn. 1969) (defining "jurisdiction" as a court’s power to hear and determine causes)
- Novak v. Levin, 287 Conn. 71 (Conn. 2008) (jurisdictional limits derive from constitutional or statutory provisions)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Strong, 149 Conn. App. 384 (Conn. App. 2014) (nonparties to a mortgage generally lack standing to enforce contractual notice provisions)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. St. John, 80 Conn. App. 767 (Conn. App. 2004) (default admits material facts of the complaint and precludes further defenses)