130 Conn. App. 238
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Melissa Cameron executed a promissory note to Members Mortgage Company, Inc. and a mortgage securing it on July 22, 2005.
- PHH Mortgage Corporation filed a February 2008 foreclosure action against Norman and Melissa Cameron for default on the note and mortgage.
- On March 5, 2009 Cameron moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming PHH lacked standing and that the note was unenforceable due to loss of the original.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and determined PHH lacked standing because it was only the servicer, not the holder, of the note at filing, and granted the motion to dismiss.
- The court then considered the merits of the unenforceable-note defense, found the handwritten clause was added after loss of the original note and not part of the original execution, and ruled the defense meritless.
- On appeal, the court sua sponte addressed aggrievement and ultimately dismissed the appeal as the defendant had no aggrievement; the ruling issued was an advisory opinion and not a binding judgment on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the foreclosure action was properly dismissed for lack of standing. | PHH contends it had standing as holder of the note at filing. | Cameron contends PHH lacked standing because it was only the servicer, not the holder, at filing. | Trial court properly dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Whether the handwritten clause rendered the note unenforceable. | PHH contends the clause was not part of the original executed note and thus unenforceable claims fail. | Cameron asserts the clause, added after loss, renders the note unenforceable. | Note unenforceability claim deemed meritless; clause not part of original execution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fontana v. Zymol Enterprises, Inc., 95 Conn.App. 606 (2006) (aggrievement and appealability principles in determining standing and relief)
- Shockley v. Okeke, 92 Conn.App. 76 (2005) (advisory opinions when court lacks subject matter jurisdiction)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232 (1989) (jurisdiction and threshold considerations for appeals)
- Lindo v. Lindo, 48 Conn.App. 645 (1998) (treatment of advisory opinions in appellate review)
- Martino v. Scalzo, 113 Conn.App. 240 (2009) (limitations on rendering advisory opinions; policy against advisory rulings)
- Soracco v. Williams Scotsman, Inc., 292 Conn. 86 (2009) (aggrievement as a threshold subject-matter jurisdiction issue)
- State v. T.D., 286 Conn. 353 (2008) (aggrievement and jurisdiction considerations in criminal and civil cases)