Keybank, N.A v. Yazar
AC42829
| Conn. App. Ct. | Aug 10, 2021Background
- 2014: Emre Yazar executed a $580,000 note secured by a mortgage on 25 Fresh Meadow Road, Weston. Payments stopped in March 2016.
- August 22, 2016: First Niagara (original lender) mailed EMAP §8-265ee(a) notices to the borrowers and later became the predecessor of KeyBank by merger/acquisition.
- Jan 16, 2017: First Niagara/its successor commenced a foreclosure that was dismissed Apr 26, 2017 for failure to comply with mediation/document requirements.
- Aug 22, 2017: KeyBank (plaintiff) commenced a new foreclosure action and did not mail a new EMAP notice before filing.
- Trial court granted KeyBank summary judgment and entered a judgment of strict foreclosure; Ozlem Yazar appealed, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to mail the required EMAP notice for the present action.
- Appellate court held that the EMAP notice requirement is a jurisdictional condition precedent and that a prior mortgagee’s EMAP notice tied to a dismissed action does not satisfy the requirement for a new foreclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an EMAP §8-265ee(a) notice sent by a prior mortgagee before a dismissed foreclosure satisfies the notice requirement for a subsequently filed foreclosure by a successor mortgagee | KeyBank: the August 22, 2016 EMAP notices (sent by First Niagara) satisfy §8-265ee(a) for the later KeyBank action | Yazar: KeyBank did not mail any EMAP notice in connection with the present foreclosure, so the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction | The mailing is a jurisdictional condition precedent; the mortgagee commencing the foreclosure must mail the EMAP notice for that specific action; prior notices tied to a dismissed action do not satisfy the requirement; case reversed and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Hammons, 196 Conn. App. 636 (EMAP notice requirement is jurisdictional; prior mortgagee's notice for a dismissed action does not satisfy later foreclosure)
- Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724 (statutory notice requirements can be jurisdictional conditions precedent)
- Washington Mutual Bank v. Coughlin, 168 Conn. App. 278 (discusses applicability of §8-265ee where EMAP notice may not be required)