347 Conn. 381
Conn.2023Background
- Emre Yazar borrowed $580,000 in 2014; Ozlem Yazar (his ex‑spouse) signed the mortgage but was not a signatory on the promissory note.
- First Niagara Bank mailed August 22, 2016 EMAP (Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program) notices to both Emre and Ozlem; Ozlem’s envelope was returned as undeliverable and she denies receipt.
- First Niagara merged into KeyBank, N.A., which became successor payee and mortgagee.
- KeyBank filed a foreclosure action in January 2017 (dismissed); KeyBank filed a second, separate foreclosure in August 2017 but did not send a new EMAP notice to Ozlem before commencing suit.
- Trial court granted KeyBank summary judgment and strict foreclosure; the Appellate Court reversed, concluding the EMAP notice requirement is jurisdictional and that KeyBank could not rely on the 2016 notice sent by First Niagara.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification to decide (1) whether the EMAP notice requirement is jurisdictional, and (2) whether a predecessor’s prior EMAP notice satisfies a successor’s later foreclosure filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 8‑265ee(a) EMAP notice requirement is jurisdictional | EMAP is directory or non‑jurisdictional; trial court retains jurisdiction even if notice defect exists | EMAP is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply deprives court of subject‑matter jurisdiction | Not jurisdictional; it is a mandatory condition precedent that must be satisfied and pleaded before a foreclosure claim can proceed |
| Whether a prior EMAP notice (sent by predecessor mortgagee before a dismissed action) satisfies notice for a later, separate foreclosure by successor | Prior 2016 EMAP notice by First Niagara satisfies KeyBank as successor; merger makes them the same mortgagee | Each foreclosure action requires a new EMAP notice; a prior notice does not suffice for a separate subsequent action | Each foreclosure action requires a new EMAP notice; predecessor’s prior notice did not satisfy KeyBank’s obligation (successor status does not eliminate the need for a new notice) |
Key Cases Cited
- MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Hammons, 196 Conn. App. 636 (Conn. App. 2020) (Appellate Court held EMAP notice jurisdictional)
- Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. Vukman, 77 A.3d 547 (Pa. 2013) (Pennsylvania high court: similar notice requirement mandatory but nonjurisdictional)
- Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. Limberger, 321 Conn. 29 (Conn. 2016) (distinguishes statutory conditions on statutory causes vs. common‑law causes for jurisdictional effect)
- Society for Savings v. Chestnut Estates, Inc., 176 Conn. 563 (Conn. 1979) (mortgage foreclosure is a common‑law cause of action)
- Matthiessen v. Vanech, 266 Conn. 822 (Conn. 2003) (presumption against legislative abrogation of common law absent clear expression)
- 1st Alliance Lending, LLC v. Dept. of Banking, 342 Conn. 273 (Conn. 2022) (usage of “shall” generally evidences mandatory intent)