202 Conn.App. 445
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- In 2007 Ceslik executed a reverse annuity mortgage and promissory note to Financial Freedom; OneWest later alleged it held the note and mortgage via recorded assignments and the note endorsed in blank.
- Ceslik stopped paying required property taxes/insurance; OneWest alleged default, accelerated, and commenced foreclosure in July 2015.
- Ceslik (self‑represented) pleaded three special defenses: laches, rescission/right of rescission, and fraud/misrepresentation; he denied default otherwise.
- OneWest moved for summary judgment on liability, submitting the note (endorsed in blank), recorded assignments, and an affidavit attesting to the assignments; the trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the special defenses were legally insufficiently pleaded (laches characterized as conclusory).
- OneWest merged into CIT Bank, N.A., which obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure; Ceslik appealed, raising (1) rejection of laches, (2) standing, (3) fraudulent assignments, (4) denial of motion to dismiss based on a prior withdrawn foreclosure, and (5) due process denial regarding a post‑appeal motion for judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OneWest/CIT) | Defendant's Argument (Ceslik) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Trial court rejection of laches special defense | Laches was legally insufficient as pleaded; motion for summary judgment may test legal sufficiency of pleadings | Evidence (statements showing zero balance/no default notices) established delay and prejudice — laches applies | Court declined to reach merits; affirmed rejection because defense was pleaded conclusorily and defendant never challenged that legal ruling below or sought to replead |
| 2) Standing (post‑appeal motion for judgment) | OneWest produced note endorsed in blank and affidavit showing possession at commencement; that establishes prima facie ownership | Celink conversation and other informal evidence showed another entity (Black Reef Trust) owned the mortgage | Court held plaintiff had standing: note endorsed in blank creates presumption of ownership and defendant produced no admissible evidence to rebut it |
| 3) Assignments were fraudulent/defective | Assignments recorded on land records and supported by sworn affidavit are valid proof of mortgage ownership | Assignments are "obviously fraudulent/defective" (no admissible proof offered to support claim) | Court rejected the claim: defendant failed to proffer admissible evidence showing fraud or defects |
| 4) Motion to dismiss based on prior withdrawn foreclosure | OneWest’s voluntary withdrawal of a prior foreclosure should bar refiling | Prior action was withdrawn during mediation; mediator’s report marked settled — defendant asserted res judicata/laches | Court denied dismissal: withdrawal under §52‑80 is permitted and defendant failed to show OneWest abused the withdrawal right or withdrew for improper purpose |
| 5) Due process re: post‑appeal motion for judgment | Court prevented meaningful rebuttal at Jan 8, 2019 hearing; denied access to plaintiff’s authorities | Plaintiff argued proper procedure; evidentiary rulings (e.g., hearsay exclusion) were correct | Claim not reviewed: defendant failed to amend appeal per Practice Book §61‑9 and briefs the issue inadequately; therefore not reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. v. Reilly, 157 Conn. App. 127 (2015) (note holder presumed owner of debt; affidavit of holder can satisfy prima facie burden)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Caldrello, 192 Conn. App. 1 (2019) (standing and prima facie foreclosure elements discussion)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn. v. Blowers, 332 Conn. 656 (2019) (fraud/misrepresentation special defenses may attack making/validity/enforcement of mortgage)
- Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (2005) (discussion on using summary judgment to challenge legal sufficiency of pleadings and repleading rights)
- Palumbo v. Barbadimos, 163 Conn. App. 100 (2016) (abuse of withdrawal right: restoring prior action where withdrawal used to avoid consequences)
- Perez‑Dickson v. Bridgeport, 304 Conn. 483 (2012) (standing challenges may be raised at any time; lack of standing implicates subject matter jurisdiction)