HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Navin
129 Conn. App. 707
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- On October 5, 2005, Navin executed a promissory note for $1,313,000 to American Brokers Conduit, secured by a mortgage on 7 Hart Landing, Guilford, and MERS held the mortgage.
- The plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, N.A. *713; later assigned the mortgage on October 5, 2005, with recording on June 14, 2007, making HSBC the holder of the note prior to the foreclosure action.
- Navin defaulted on payments, causing acceleration of the balance, and HSBC commenced foreclosure by service on June 13, 2007.
- HSBC moved for summary judgment on August 25, 2009; Navin argued lack of standing because HSBC allegedly lacked ownership of the note/mortgage at filing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on November 13, 2009; judgment of strict foreclosure followed on February 22, 2010; this appeal ensued.
- The court held HSBC had standing to foreclose, relying on the note-holder doctrine and prior decisions; the operative complaint was the June 13, 2007 filing, not the November 6, 2006 complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did HSBC have standing to foreclose? | HSBC, as holder of the note, possessed standing at the time suit commenced. | Navin argued HSBC lacked ownership of the note/mortgage when action began. | Yes; HSBC had standing to commence the foreclosure. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact that HSBC possessed the note and mortgage at filing? | Affidavits showed the note was endorsed in blank and in HSBC's possession before filing. | Navin offered affidavits claiming HSBC did not possess the note at filing. | No genuine issue; the court accepted HSBC's possession evidence and granted summary judgment. |
| Is proof of mortgage ownership required at filing, or is note ownership sufficient for standing? | Under Chase Home Finance v. Fequiere, the holder of the note may foreclose even if the mortgage is not yet assigned. | Navin contends mortgage ownership must be shown. | Note ownership suffices to confer standing; the mortgage need not be in HSBC's name at that time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570 (Conn. App. 2010) (holder of note may foreclose even if mortgage not yet assigned)
- New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn. 511 (Conn. 2009) (standing implicates trial court subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Megin v. New Milford, 125 Conn. App. 35 (Conn. App. 2010) (plenary review of standing questions)
- Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 297 Conn. 710 (Conn. 2010) (standards for reviewing summary judgment decisions)
- Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 290 Conn. 767 (Conn. 2009) (evidentiary burden and genuine issue of material fact guidance)