195 Conn.App. 357
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background:
- 2005 adjustable-rate promissory note ($532,000) signed by John Mazzeo; mortgage signed by John and Linda Mazzeo and recorded against 36 Shady Lane, Monroe, CT.
- Plaintiff: The Bank of New York Mellon (trustee) filed foreclosure in August 2012; Bayview Loan Servicing (subservicer) and Bank of America (master servicer) were involved in servicing history.
- At trial plaintiff produced the original note (endorsed in blank) and a copy of the note; court reviewed originals and admitted copies into evidence.
- Plaintiff offered a February 16, 2010 default notice and an attached Bank of America servicing-platform screenshot; Bayview litigation manager Lauren Haberlan testified about boarding/verification but lacked personal knowledge of Bank of America’s mailing procedures.
- Trial court found plaintiff proved standing, ownership of the debt, and that notices of default were sent; it denied defendants’ motion for judgment and entered foreclosure by sale.
- Appellate court reversed: it held plaintiff had standing but failed to prove the condition precedent (first-class mailing of the default notice) because the testimony and screenshot did not support a reasonable inference the notice was actually mailed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Standing — was plaintiff the holder/entitled to enforce the note when suit began? | Production of the original note endorsed in blank (and copy admitted) establishes prima facie that plaintiff was holder and had standing. | Plaintiff failed to prove it was holder at commencement absent the routing history; routing history was improperly admitted. | Held for plaintiff: production of the endorsed-in-blank note raised a presumption of holder status; defendants offered no evidence to rebut it. |
| 2) Prima facie case — did plaintiff show conditions precedent (notice of default mailed by first-class mail) were satisfied? | The default notice and the servicing-platform screenshot, plus Bayview’s boarding/verification, suffice to infer mailing. | Testimony lacked personal knowledge of Bank of America’s mailing practices; screenshot alone is insufficient to prove deposit in mail. | Held for defendants: evidence did not support a reasonable inference the notice was mailed; plaintiff failed to prove the mailing condition precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Strong, 149 Conn. App. 384 (Conn. App. 2014) (plaintiff bears burden to establish standing in foreclosure action)
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Bliss, 159 Conn. App. 483 (Conn. App. 2015) (production of note and witness testimony raises presumption that plaintiff is holder)
- Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 310 Conn. 119 (Conn. 2013) (representations by plaintiff’s counsel about possession of original note can be relied on absent fact-based challenge)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Simoulidis, 161 Conn. App. 133 (Conn. App. 2015) (defendant must rebut presumption that holder of endorsed or bearer note owns the debt)
- Kerin v. Udolf, 165 Conn. 264 (Conn. 1973) (a letter’s deposit in mail may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence from a witness with personal knowledge of mailing practices)
- Echavarria v. Nat. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 275 Conn. 408 (Conn. 2005) (mailbox rule / presumption of delivery for properly deposited first-class mail)