Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers
125 Conn. App. 201
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Equity One, Inc. (servicer for Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc.) filed foreclosure against Thomas J. Shivers on 27 Mountain Street, Vernon, based on a November 28, 2006 mortgage.
- Plaintiff alleged borrower defaulted on the note, leading to acceleration and foreclosure by sale.
- Foreclosure proceedings progressed with default granted July 23, 2007 and a foreclosure by sale judgment dated September 24, 2007.
- Sale dates were extended twice; the May 10, 2008 sale did not occur due to Shivers's bankruptcy filing on May 8, 2008.
- After bankruptcy stay was lifted, plaintiff moved to reopen and reenter judgment on November 7, 2008; defendant objected to standing and requested production of the original note.
- At the November 2008 hearing, court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on standing; the court ultimately concluded plaintiff had standing, but this was not based on a formal standing determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on standing | Shivers challenged standing; a hearing was required | Equity One lacked standing at initiation; no evidentiary hearing held | Remand for evidentiary hearing on standing |
| Whether lack of standing deprived court of subject matter jurisdiction | Standing confers subject matter jurisdiction to foreclose | Without standing, court lacked jurisdiction | Remand needed to determine status of note holder at filing |
| Whether judgment violated bankruptcy stay | Proceedings were within stay exceptions or post-stay proceedings | Foreclosure activities violated stay as to assets | Not decided due to remand on standing; thus, reversed for evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Haigh v. Haigh, 50 Conn.App. 456 (1998) (framework for determining subject matter jurisdiction and necessity of hearing when jurisdiction is challenged)
- Koskoff v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 27 Conn.App. 443 (1992) (standing and jurisdiction principles in Connecticut appellate practice)
- Carten v. Carten, 153 Conn. 603 (1966) (jurisdiction must be determined regardless of form and prior rulings may be dismissed)
- Cross v. Hudon, 27 Conn.App. 729 (1992) (when lack of jurisdiction is raised, case must be dismissed)
- Fleet National Bank v. Nazareth, 75 Conn.App. 791 (2003) (standing is required to invoke court jurisdiction; holder status matters)