Hudson Valley Bank v. Kissel, 35 A.3d 260

Foreclosure action concerns property at 43 Burning Tree Road, Greenwich, with multiple forged mortgage releases involved.
Kissel obtained four mortgages (Washington Mutual, Hudson Valley, Independence, Ridgefield) through fraud; each mortgage was subsequently recorded in Greenwich land records.
Hudson Valley foreclosed; sale occurred March 31, 2007, property sold for $2,300,000; surplus proceeds of about $404,000 remained.
First American (title insurer for Washington Mutual and Hudson Valley) and Stewart Title (insurer for Independence) claimed entitlement to all or part of the surplus.
Trial court: Judge Downey allocated a pro rata share to Stewart Title per its proffered arrangement; later First American sought to intervene and, after reargument, the court awarded all surplus to First American on an equitable basis.
Court affirms on alternate ground that First American’s mortgage was recorded prior to Stewart Title’s, thus First American is entitled to all surplus under first in time, first in right rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether First American timely intervened in the action.	First American timely intervened to protect its surplus interest.	Stewart Title contends intervention was untimely post-sale.	Timely intervention affirmed.
Whether the trial court used proper review in reargument.	Downey’s ruling improperly applied prior apportionment.	Tierney should defer to Downey’s merits.	Tierney could reconsider de novo on merits.
Whether First American is entitled to all surplus under first in time rule.	First American recorded before Stewart Title, so entitled to full surplus.	Equitable apportionment should distribute among lienholders.	First American entitled to all surplus under first in time, first in right.
Whether Bryson governs apportionment here.	Bryson supports apportionment based on value shares.	Bryson distinguishes this case; not controlling.	Bryson not controlling; first in time applies.

Washington Trust Co. v. Smith, 241 Conn. 734 (1997) (timeliness of intervention hinges on interest and purpose)
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 279 Conn. 447 (2006) (de novo review of interests in intervention; timeliness not resolved here)
Independence One Mortgage Corp. v. Katsaros, 43 Conn.App. 71 (1996) (first in time, first in right principle in foreclosures)
Bryson v. Newtown Real Estate & Development Corp., 153 Conn. 267 (1965) (distinguishable; apportionment not applicable where interests on separate estates)
Robinson v. Security Co., 87 Conn. 268 (1913) (contrast: pari passu in bankruptcy, not foreclosure)