146 Conn. App. 580
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Foreclosure action filed August 11, 2009 on property in Farmington; mortgage on polo grounds; money damages sought.
- Defendants answered, raising knowledge defenses, five special defenses, and a four-count counterclaim; plaintiffs denied and asserted four defenses to counterclaim.
- Trial held May 2011; memorandum of decision issued January 6, 2012; court found Park deed to Show Grounds, 2004 note to Polo Grounds/Kerrigan, and subordinate inter-creditor arrangement.
- Show Grounds conveyed to Brouillard with May 6, 2004 mortgages; Brouillard executed modification increasing first mortgage by $300,000.
- Court found plaintiffs held May 7, 2004 note for $1,000,000 secured by Show Grounds mortgage; defendants in default; debt determined at $1,052,624 as of May 7, 2009; FMV valued at $1,330,000.
- Judgment for plaintiffs; law days set; defendants appealed January 26, 2012 challenging standing and debt amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose | Plaintiffs proved they owned the note and had standing. | Defendants argued plaintiffs lacked standing; deviation not properly raised at trial. | Plaintiffs had standing; record supported ownership. |
| Debt amount and modification | Modification not binding on plaintiffs; debt amount correctly determined. | Debt reduction claimed via modification or dicta in bank case creates dispute. | Debt amount correctly determined; modification not proven; Satter dicta not controlling. |
| Res judicata / collateral estoppel | Bank case does not bar this action; issues differ and are not identical. | Bank case potentially precludes relitigation of debt amount. | Res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply; issues not identical or necessary to bank judgment. |
| Finality of judgment / law days | Trial court implicitly rendered a strict foreclosure when setting law days. | No final judgment until law days set; appeal improper otherwise. | Implicit strict foreclosure found; appeal timely and properly before court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webster Bank v. Zak, 259 Conn. 766 (2002) (standing and subject matter jurisdiction emphasized)
- RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224 (2011) (presumption of note ownership; prima facie ownership)
- Garris v. Calechman, 118 Conn. 112 (1934) (prima facie evidence of ownership by bearer note)
- Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp., 245 Conn. 1 (1998) (standing and jurisdiction; reviewability of unraised claims)
- National Grange Mutual Ins. Co. v. Santaniello, 290 Conn. 81 (2009) (plenary review on standing; appellate standards)
- Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp., 255 Conn. 762 (2001) (collateral estoppel; scope of issue preclusion)
- Jackson v. R. G. Whipple, Inc., 225 Conn. 705 (1993) (materiality and essentiality of findings; dicta guidance)
- Tirozzi v. Shelby Ins. Co., 50 Conn. App. 680 (1998) (elements of res judicata and procedural preclusion)
- Capp Industries, Inc. v. Schoenberg, 104 Conn. App. 101 (2007) (final judgment and law days in strict foreclosure)
- Connecticut National Bank v. L & R Realty, 40 Conn. App. 492 (1996) (setting law days; support for finality in foreclosure)