205 Conn.App. 189
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Mary and Johnnie Jackson paid off their 2010 mortgage in January 2016 (wire transfer per a negotiated payoff/short-sale approval) and alleged they requested a release under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-8(c).
- Plaintiffs sued Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, claiming Pennymac failed to execute and deliver a timely release and seeking statutory damages and fees under § 49-8(c).
- Pennymac moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing and that any release was effective despite a typographical/scrivener error; it did not argue noncompliance with the § 49-8(c) notice requirements in its motion to dismiss.
- The trial court, sua sponte, concluded plaintiffs had not shown strict compliance with the statutory written-demand/notice provisions of § 49-8(c) (e.g., certified/registered mailing or receipt) and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court violated due process by deciding an issue the defendant had not raised and without giving plaintiffs notice or an opportunity to present evidence of compliance.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the court improperly resolved the notice-compliance issue sua sponte without notice or a hearing and rejecting Pennymac’s alternative standing and release-validity defenses as grounds to affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court violated due process by deciding § 49-8(c) notice-compliance sua sponte | Court could not decide notice-compliance without notice/hearing; plaintiffs lacked opportunity to submit evidence | Plaintiffs had opportunity via pleadings and special defenses; they refused to present evidence | Reversed: court violated due process by resolving the issue sua sponte without notice or opportunity to be heard |
| Whether failure to satisfy § 49-8(c) notice is jurisdictional | Plaintiffs: any notice issue affects remedy, not jurisdiction; court must permit evidence | Pennymac: notice is a condition precedent to suit and jurisdictional | Court: notice-compliance goes to court’s authority to grant relief, not core subject-matter jurisdiction; regardless, movant or court must give notice before deciding it |
| Whether plaintiffs had standing/are "aggrieved" under § 49-8(c) | Plaintiffs: § 49-8 is a penalty statute; statutory aggrievement does not require actual damages — mortgagors qualify | Pennymac: plaintiffs suffered no damages, weren’t owners, and any defect cured by corrected release or § 49-9a | Plaintiffs have statutory standing: § 49-8 allows recovery without proof of actual damages and mortgagors can be aggrieved |
| Whether original release/scrivener's error cured under § 49-9a or by corrective filing | Plaintiffs: absence of recorded affidavit under § 49-9a and contested merits make this a merits issue, not standing | Pennymac: release effective despite naming error; § 49-9a (savings clause) or corrected release cures defect | Court: no affidavit was shown; validity/retroactive cure are merits issues that do not negate standing; defendant failed to prove § 49-9a applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellemare v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp., 284 Conn. 193 (statute penalizes late releases; actual damages not required)
- Ghent v. Meadowhaven Condominium, Inc., 77 Conn. App. 276 (distinguishing jurisdiction from statutory authority to grant relief)
- Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724 (jurisdiction vs. authority distinction)
- Szot v. Szot, 41 Conn. App. 238 (due process requires hearing when facts are disputed)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (jurisdictional determinations dependent on factual disputes require evidentiary hearing)
- Berglass v. Berglass, 71 Conn. App. 771 (purpose of written motions and due process in notice of issues)
- Hall v. Kasper Associates, Inc., 81 Conn. App. 808 (nonowners can be "persons aggrieved" under § 49-8)
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Orange, 256 Conn. 557 (what constitutes a colorable claim of injury for standing)
- Lewis v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 62 Conn. App. 284 (statutory aggrievement need not show actual injury)