Mengwall v. Rutkowski
102 A.3d 710
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff filed a strict foreclosure action on February 28, 2012, against defendant’s property; default judgments were entered against defendant and co-defendant Rutkowski in 2012; defendant appeared in 2012 and the case proceeded to summary judgment on liability in 2013; plaintiff’s standing to foreclose was challenged via a motion to dismiss in July 2013; plaintiff produced the original note at the hearing, after previously relying on a copy and lost-note affidavit; defendant argued discrepancies between the original note and a later copy with a handwritten mark, and sought a full evidentiary hearing re standing; the court held a hearing, determined plaintiff had standing, denied the motion to dismiss, and later denied defendant’s motion to reargue, with judgment of strict foreclosure affirmed and remanded for law days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and need for evidentiary hearing | Mengwall established standing by producing the original note | Rutkowska contends discrepancies require a full evidentiary hearing | Court found standing established; no full evidentiary hearing required |
| Denial of motion to reargue | Plaintiff's position unchanged; no controlling overlooked law | Defendant argues court overlooked issues and misapplied law | Court did not abuse its discretion; denial affirmed |
| Discrepancy between notes and authenticity | Original note admitted; copy’s handwritten mark does not negate authenticity | Discrepancy creates genuine dispute on jurisdictional facts | Discrepancy not sufficient to require evidentiary hearing; authenticity of original note upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224 (2011) (presumption of ownership and standing to foreclose; note production establishes prima facie case)
- Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 310 Conn. 119 (2013) (recognizes when evidentiary hearing is required for jurisdictional facts; notes that not every case needs one)
- Liberti v. Liberti, 132 Conn. App. 869 (2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to reargue; second bite at the apple not allowed)
- Burton v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 291 Conn. 789 (2009) (subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law; court lacks discretion if lacking jurisdiction)