Unifund CCR Partners v. Schaeppi
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 36
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Unifund CCR Partners filed a foreclosure action on a judgment lien against Ellen A. Schaeppi and Ernest A. Schaeppi arising from a credit card debt action.
- A judgment lien was recorded July 18, 2006, based on a June 19, 2006 judgment entered on the fact finder’s report as revised after remand, though the record showed no fixed dollar amount of damages.
- Weekly payment provisions were ordered September 11, 2006, after the lien was recorded, creating additional monetary obligations but not a fixed money judgment amount.
- Plaintiff sought partial summary judgment in September 2007; the trial court denied it, noting unresolved exempt vs. nonexempt property issues and doubt about property value, and that no finite debt amount was found in the underlying case.
- Defendants later moved for summary judgment again, and Judge Satter granted it, concluding that a judgment of no amount underlying a lien for an incorrect amount cannot form the basis of foreclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the summary judgment lacked a proper memorandum of law | Schaeppi—lack prejudices due to missing §11-10 memo | Schappees—duplicate memorandum satisfied §11-10 and prejudice not shown | No reversible error; memorandum adequate and no prejudice |
| Whether the lien was invalid for seeking a money judgment of no amount | June 19, 2006 judgment determined liability and damages from record | Amount not clearly set; no definitive money judgment entered | Lien invalid for money-amount; no money judgment entered |
| Whether the September 11, 2006 weekly payment order created a money judgment | Order was a money judgment under §52-350a(13) supporting the lien | Lien recorded before such order; order cannot validate lien | Order could not ground the lien; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Weigold v. Patel, 81 Conn.App. 347 (Conn. App. 2004) (summary judgment may be proper without a memorandum when no facts in dispute)
- Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 97 Conn.App. 541 (Conn. App. 2006) (money judgment must be definite or ascertainable from record)
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. Kelepecz, 289 Conn. 692 (Conn. 2008) (judgment lien mechanics; need valid money judgment at recording)
- Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2010) (plenary review of summary judgment decisions)