GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford
144 Conn. App. 165
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Ford executed a $177,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage on 123 Roosevelt Street, Bridgeport, in July 2006.
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC filed this foreclosure action on March 15, 2010, alleging default and acceleration since September 1, 2009.
- GMAC asserted it owned the note and mortgage; Ford appeared in August 2010 and contested standing in his pleadings and defense.
- GMAC moved for summary judgment in April 2011; Ford sought to amend his answer, special defense and counterclaim, and objected to the motion.
- The court granted summary judgment as to liability in July 2011; Ford’s motion to amend was denied in July 2011; the court later granted strict foreclosure in May 2012.
- The court found the balance due and that the note and mortgage were properly filed; Ford argued rescission rights under Truth in Lending Act but failed to present supporting evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether standing was properly resolved and the action dismissed or not | GMAC is holder of the note and mortgage; complaint alleged it held the note; Plaintiff had standing. | Ford challenged standing and sought dismissal or evidentiary hearing on that issue. | Motion to dismiss properly denied; standing established on complaint's uncontested allegations. |
| Whether summary judgment on liability was proper | No genuine issues of material fact; Plaintiff is holder and debtor in default; supporting affidavits establish liability. | Dispute existence of material facts and that original note production and rescission argument create triable issues. | Summary judgment as to liability affirmed; no genuine issues supported by adequate counteraffidavits. |
| Whether the court should have treated the motion to summary judgment as a motion to strike or allowed amendment | Amendments would be improper; insufficient to cure legal defects; no obligation to strike and replead. | Larobina/American Progressive Life extend to allow amendment or strike when sufficiency issues exist. | Court did not abuse discretion; declined to treat as motion to strike or allow amendments seeking wholly new defenses. |
| Whether the strict foreclosure judgment was proper given the evidentiary basis and amount of debt | Original note, mortgage, assignment and affidavits support amount of debt; hearing complied with Practice Book § 23-18. | Challenged the amount and claimed misrepresentations; sought evidentiary hearing on debt amount. | Strict foreclosure affirmed; debt amount supported by affidavits and documents; no error in judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570 (2010) (standing requires factual basis for jurisdiction; appellate de novo review)
- RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224 (2011) (holder of note presumed owner for standing; burden shifts to defendant)
- Unisys Corp. v. Dept. of Labor, 220 Conn. 689 (1991) (jurisdictional hearing only when disputed facts exist)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bialobrzeski, 123 Conn. App. 791 (2010) (summary judgment in foreclosure when no triable issues exist)
- American Progressive Life & Health Ins. Co. of New York v. Better Benefits, LLC, 292 Conn. 111 (2009) (motion to strike considered when sufficiency of defenses is challenged)
- Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (2005) (Larobina extension: repleading permitted to cure defects if possible)
- LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 65 Conn. App. 1 (2001) (timing of summary judgment vs. amendment decisions within trial court discretion)
- Carrasquillo v. Carlson, 90 Conn. App. 705 (2005) (permissible defenses in foreclosure and pleading standards)
- Wilton Meadows Ltd. Partnership v. Coratolo, 299 Conn. 819 (2011) (reargue standard and discretion in dismissals and amendments)
- LaSalle National Bank v. Shook, 67 Conn. App. 93 (2001) (evidentiary standards for summary judgment in foreclosure)