200 Conn.App. 852
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Susanne Wahba obtained a Washington Mutual (WaMu) mortgage (2003); JPMorgan Chase (JPM) acquired WaMu’s assets on Sept. 25, 2008 and a modification was executed Sept. 29, 2008.
- Wahba applied for additional loan modifications 2008–2012; a new loan agreement was executed Aug. 29, 2012.
- Wahba sued (Sept. 2013) alleging CUTPA violations based on deceptive/unfair conduct during the modification process; JPM counterclaimed to foreclose.
- On the eve of the jury trial JPM moved in limine to exclude (a) evidence about WaMu’s pre-acquisition conduct (2008 modification) and (b) regulatory documents (consent order, FDIC press release, Treasury posting); Wahba sought to amend her complaint the morning trial began to add WaMu-related allegations.
- Jury found for JPM on the CUTPA claim; a later bench trial awarded strict foreclosure to JPM. On appeal Wahba challenged the two motions in limine and denial of the late amendment; she did not adequately brief the foreclosure challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of WaMu-conduct evidence (Mar. 15 motion in limine) | WaMu communications and conduct underlying the 2008 modification were relevant to CUTPA claims and should be admitted. | Evidence was not pleaded; and FIRREA requires administrative exhaustion before suing successor bank for predecessor acts. | Appeal dismissed as moot on this point because Wahba challenged only the FIRREA ground on appeal and not the independent pleading ground. |
| Exclusion of consent order and related regulatory evidence (Mar. 16 motion in limine) | The consent order and regulator findings show JPM’s servicing practices and motive for modification decisions; relevant to CUTPA. | The documents are not tied to Wahba’s specific loan, are irrelevant to pleaded issues, and would be prejudicial. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; consent order irrelevant to the pleaded claims; claims as to two other documents were inadequately briefed. |
| Denial of request to amend complaint on eve of trial | Amendment merely adds WaMu communications and would not unfairly prejudice JPM. | Amendment was late, introduced substantial new allegations, and would prejudice/require delay. | Affirmed: denial proper given lateness, substantial change to pleadings, and potential prejudice/delay. |
| Challenge to strict foreclosure judgment | Wahba sought reversal of both the jury verdict and foreclosure judgment. | JPM: Wahba failed to brief any errors from the bench foreclosure trial. | Abandoned for inadequate briefing; appellate review of foreclosure judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 324 Conn. 519 (2017) (failure to challenge all independent bases for an adverse ruling renders appellate relief unavailable).
- McBurney v. Paquin, 302 Conn. 359 (2011) (standards for motions in limine and appellate review of evidentiary rulings).
- Aber-Shukofsky v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 755 F. Supp. 2d 441 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (FIRREA requires exhaustion of administrative claims against failed-bank assets before judicial review).
- Billy & Leo, LLC v. Michaelidis, 87 Conn. App. 710 (2005) (factors in denying last-minute amendments: delay, prejudice, and negligence).
- KMK Insulation, Inc. v. A. Prete & Son Construction Co., 49 Conn. App. 522 (1998) (evidence must be relevant to issues as framed by the pleadings).