Property Asset Management, Inc. v. Lazarte, 138 A.3d 290

In 2007 Lazarte executed a note to GE Money Bank and a mortgage to MERS as nominee; foreclosure was filed October 14, 2008 by Property Asset Management, Inc. (original plaintiff).
The complaint alleged default; assignments on the land records showed MERS → WMC (recorded Nov. 2, 2007, undated) and WMC → original plaintiff (executed Jan. 21, 2009).
Original plaintiff moved for summary judgment (liability); its supporting affidavit stated the original note, endorsed in blank, was delivered to it on or before October 6, 2008.
Defendant defaulted for discovery failures; the mortgage was later assigned to US Bank as substitute plaintiff and the court entered a strict foreclosure judgment in 2013; Lazarte did not appeal that judgment.
In Feb. 2015 Lazarte moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing original plaintiff lacked standing at the time the action was filed because it did not own the debt or possess the note; the court denied the motion and also declined to hold an evidentiary hearing.
This appeal challenges (1) the denial of the motion to dismiss (standing) and (2) the court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing; the trial court held the original plaintiff possessed a blank-endorsed note before suit and the defendant presented no contrary evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring foreclosure	Possession of the original note endorsed in blank makes plaintiff a holder entitled to enforce the note and thus to foreclose	Assignment timing shows plaintiff did not acquire note/rights until 2009, after suit filed, so no standing in 2008	Court: possession affidavit established prima facie that plaintiff held the blank-endorsed note before suit; defendant presented no evidence to rebut; standing exists
Relevance of mortgage assignment language	Assignment language about assigning the note is irrelevant where standing rests on possession of a blank-endorsed note	Assignment dated Jan. 21, 2009 (assigning mortgage "together with the mortgage note") proves plaintiff lacked note possession when suit began	Court: assignment language does not overcome the affidavit evidence of possession; discrepancies in assignment wording are not dispositive to standing
Need for evidentiary hearing on jurisdictional facts	No hearing needed because the record and pleadings resolve standing; defendant earlier stated no hearing required	Defendant later contended record raised doubts warranting a hearing to resolve factual dispute about possession	Court: no genuine disputed jurisdictional fact existed—defendant failed to rebut affidavit evidence—so no evidentiary hearing required

RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224 (holding holder of note has standing to foreclose)
J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Properties, LLC, 309 Conn. 307 (discussing standing and related UCC principles)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Strong, 149 Conn. App. 384 (standing and subject matter jurisdiction principles)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bliss, 159 Conn. App. 483 (presumption from possession of blank-endorsed note and defendant’s burden to rebut)
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Creed, 145 Conn. App. 38 (assignment language discrepancies not dispositive when standing rests on note possession)
Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (evidentiary hearing required when jurisdictional facts are genuinely disputed)
Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 310 Conn. 119 (noting hearing required if genuine dispute on standing)
May v. Coffey, 291 Conn. 106 (lack of standing properly raised by motion to dismiss)
Fleet National Bank v. Nazareth, 75 Conn. App. 791 (statutory avenue for holder to foreclose when mortgage not assigned)
JPMorgan Chase Bank National Assn. v. Simoulidis, 161 Conn. App. 133 (standard of review for jurisdictional/standing rulings)