U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Sorrentino
118 A.3d 607
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 2006 Sorrentino executed a $380,000 note and mortgage to Chase; she later quitclaimed the property to an LLC she owned.
- Plaintiff (U.S. Bank, trustee) sued in 2009 to foreclose the mortgage; the case was referred to court‑annexed foreclosure mediation in 2010.
- Defendants answered in 2013 and asserted eleven special defenses and five counterclaims; four counterclaims alleged misconduct by the plaintiff during the mediation process.
- The plaintiff moved for summary judgment (challenging liability on the foreclosure complaint and the legal sufficiency of the counterclaims); defendants opposed only on standing and did not respond to the plaintiff’s legal challenge to the mediation counterclaims or submit affidavits.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the foreclosure liability and on the four mediation‑based counterclaims, reasoning defendants presented no evidence and did not contest the plaintiff’s legal argument that the counterclaims were not transactionally related to the mortgage.
- On appeal the defendants argued the plaintiff’s summary judgment evidence was unresponsive to the counterclaims; the court treated the issue as whether the mediation claims were legally misjoined and therefore insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mediation‑related counterclaims arise from same transaction as foreclosure (Practice Book §10‑10) | Mediation misconduct occurred post‑loan, post‑default, post‑commencement and therefore does not relate to making, validity or enforcement of the mortgage/note; claims are improperly joined and legally insufficient | The plaintiff’s summary judgment papers failed to address the specific factual allegations, so plaintiff did not meet its initial burden and defendants were not obliged to submit evidence | Held for plaintiff: mediation conduct lacks reasonable nexus to making/validity/enforcement; counterclaims are legally insufficient and repleading would be futile |
| Whether plaintiff had to submit evidence disproving factual allegations in mediation counterclaims on summary judgment | No—plaintiff’s challenge was legal (misjoinder/insufficiency); assuming factual allegations true, they still fall outside Practice Book §10‑10 so no responsive factual proof required | Plaintiff’s evidence was unresponsive; thus summary judgment improper because defendants didn’t need to rebut | Held for plaintiff: because claim was legal insufficiency, responsive factual rebuttal was unnecessary |
| Whether defendants’ failure to move to strike or to replead prejudiced them | Plaintiff could challenge sufficiency via summary judgment if the defect is incurable by repleading; defendants did not object or show prejudice | Defendants argued plaintiff waived challenge by not moving to strike and failing to put forward responsive evidence | Held for plaintiff: defendants did not object to procedure and cannot show prejudice; Larobina permits summary relief when repleading would be futile |
| Whether CUTPA counterclaim was preserved/adequately briefed on appeal | Not directly contested on the merits in defendants’ brief | Defendants argued factual deficiencies (e.g., absence of HUD‑1) but offered no legal analysis | CUTPA claim deemed inadequately briefed and abandoned on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (Conn.) (summary judgment may challenge pleading sufficiency when defect cannot be cured by repleading)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, Trustee v. Rodrigues, 109 Conn. App. 125 (Conn. App.) (foreclosure counterclaim must relate to making, validity or enforcement of note/mortgage)
- New Haven Sav. Bank v. LaPlace, 66 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App.) (affirming summary judgment on counterclaims unrelated to mortgage enforcement)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rey, 150 Conn. App. 595 (Conn. App.) (counterclaim must have a reasonable nexus to making/validity/enforcement of the mortgage/note)
- Southbridge Assocs., LLC v. Garofalo, 53 Conn. App. 11 (Conn. App.) (post‑origination conduct ordinarily not same transaction as foreclosure complaint)
- Himmelstein v. Windsor, 116 Conn. App. 28 (Conn. App.) (standards for summary judgment review)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Barron, 269 Conn. 394 (Conn.) (nonmovant need not submit opposing proof when movant fails to show lack of genuine issue)
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn. App. 165 (Conn. App.) (limits on repleading after a motion to strike)