206 Conn.App. 303
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Unit 23 in a Branford condominium was encumbered by a $150,000 mortgage from Taylor to Marvin Blassingdale recorded in 2009.
- Jefferson Woods (the condo association) recorded a lis pendens on Feb. 6, 2015 and sued in a foreclosure action seeking strict foreclosure of its common-charge lien.
- Judge trial referee entered a judgment of strict foreclosure on Apr. 11, 2016; law days began May 31, 2016. No redemption or appeal occurred and title vested in Jefferson Woods on June 7, 2016.
- Blassingdale assigned his mortgage note to Gibson on May 21, 2016; Gibson recorded that assignment May 26, 2016 (five days before law days ran). Gibson never participated in the prior foreclosure.
- Jefferson Woods sold the unit to Pagliaro in Oct. 2016. In 2019 Gibson sued to foreclose the assigned mortgage and for unjust enrichment; the trial court dismissed both counts for lack of standing and Gibson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose: whether Gibson may enforce the assigned mortgage after the prior strict foreclosure | Gibson: prior foreclosure was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under §47-258(m)(1), so the mortgage was not extinguished and she has standing | Jefferson Woods: prior strict foreclosure was valid, law days expired, title vested in association; Gibson had constructive notice and did not appeal or appear, so collateral attack fails | Court: Dismissal affirmed — mortgage was extinguished when law days expired; collateral attack not permitted absent an obvious jurisdictional defect |
| Standing for unjust enrichment claim based on alleged voidness of prior foreclosure | Gibson: judgment was null because §47-258(m)(1) prerequisites were not satisfied, so Jefferson Woods was unjustly enriched | Jefferson Woods: mortgage extinguished by operation of the prior foreclosure; Gibson lacks a legal interest to base unjust-enrichment claim | Court: Dismissal affirmed — unjust-enrichment claim fails because Gibson’s mortgage interest was extinguished by the prior foreclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Sousa v. Sousa, 322 Conn. 757 (2016) (collateral attacks on final judgments are disfavored and permitted only in rare instances where lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is obvious)
- Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. Limberger, 321 Conn. 29 (2016) (requirements in §47-258(m)(1) are conditions precedent to suit and treated as jurisdictional prerequisites)
- Barclays Bank of New York v. Ivler, 20 Conn. App. 163 (1989) (when law days expire without redemption, absolute title vests in the redeeming encumbrancer)
- Ghent v. Meadowhaven Condominium, Inc., 77 Conn. App. 276 (2003) (lis pendens gives constructive notice and binds subsequent acquirers/assignees to pending litigation)
- Hudson House Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Brooks, 223 Conn. 610 (1992) (statutory foreclosure and its effects cannot be undone by unjust-enrichment theory)