Marut v. INDYMAC BANK, FSB
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 6
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- In a foreclosure action, IndyMac Bank, FSB sued the plaintiff for property at 100 Whitney Street, Hartford.
- IndyMac's counsel in the foreclosure was Hunt Leibert Jacobson, P.C.
- A judgment of strict foreclosure was entered on May 4, 2009; a certified notice under § 47a-11b was sent August 25, 2009 but marked Vacant and returned with no access for plaintiff.
- Plaintiff's personal property was removed after he did not receive the notice and did not respond within deadlines; plaintiff filed a conversion action January 8, 2010.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment; after initial denial, a second motion was granted December 6, 2010 when plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear, and the court treated the motion as unopposed.
- Plaintiff sought to open the December 6, 2010 judgment, which the court denied; plaintiff appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact existed on control of the plaintiff's property | Marut asserts defendant changed locks and removed property. | No evidence supports defendant's role in changing locks or handling property. | No genuine issue; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether § 47a-11b notice details affect the conversion claim | Notice addressed to last-known address creates material dispute about control. | Notice issues are not part of a conversion claim. | Not material to conversion; no dispute affecting ownership/possession. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to open the judgment | Should have been allowed oral argument on the open motion. | Plaintiff waived by not appearing after continuance denial. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faigel v. Fairfield University, 75 Conn.App. 37 (2003) (summary judgment burden and evidentiary standard)
- Hodgate v. Ferraro, 123 Conn.App. 443 (2010) (opponent must provide evidentiary foundation for genuine issues)
- Shukis v. Board of Education, 122 Conn.App. 555 (2010) (need for evidentiary facts beyond pleadings to create issues)
- Pion v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 44 Conn.App. 657 (1997) (genuine issue of material fact requires counterevidence)
- Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789 (2000) (conclusory statements do not create genuine issues)
- Double G.G. Leasing, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 116 Conn.App. 417 (2009) (corporate and evidentiary standards for summary judgment)