Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Henderson
2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 329
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Genevieve Henderson executed a note (Dec. 31, 2007) and mortgage securing a $180,000 loan; she defaulted and Wells Fargo commenced foreclosure by writ and complaint (return date Aug. 31, 2010).
- Plaintiff Wells Fargo produced a copy of the promissory note (endorsed in blank) and an affidavit from a Wells Fargo employee stating Wells Fargo received the note (Oct. 16, 2009) and has retained possession since.
- A corporate assignment of mortgage from MERS to Wells Fargo is dated Oct. 7, 2011 (after suit commencement); Henderson argued Wells Fargo lacked standing because assignment occurred after the suit began.
- Trial court considered cross motions for summary judgment, found Wells Fargo presented a prima facie foreclosure case, and Henderson presented no admissible evidence rebutting Wells Fargo’s possession/holding of the note.
- Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability and later entered a judgment of strict foreclosure; defendant appealed claiming lack of standing and denial of due process (denial of hearings/oral argument).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose | Wells Fargo was holder of the note at commencement (produced note + affidavit) | Wells Fargo lacked standing because mortgage and note were not assigned before suit began | Court: Wells Fargo’s unrebutted affidavit and note (endorsed in blank) sufficiently established standing for summary judgment; later mortgage assignment date immaterial because holder of note may foreclose |
| Sufficiency of affidavit / "original copy" phrasing | Affidavit stating Wells Fargo possessed "the original copy of the note" refers to the original note and proves possession | Phrase "original copy" ambiguous; not proof of wet-ink original | Court: phrase reasonably read as original document; affidavit adequate for summary judgment purposes |
| Right to evidentiary or chain‑of‑custody hearing | No genuine dispute of material fact on standing; summary judgment based on documentary evidence — no evidentiary hearing required | Requested hearings (chain of custody, on motions) and evidentiary hearings were necessary to resolve standing and authenticity issues | Court: No due process violation — defendant failed to show a factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing; chain‑of‑custody hearing unnecessary after grant of summary judgment |
| Denial of oral argument / continuance | Court provided opportunities for argument; rulings within discretion; no abuse shown | Court refused to hear oral argument on several motions and denied continuance without hearing | Court: Record shows opportunity for oral argument on key motions; continuance decision discretionary and oral argument not required; no deprivation of process shown |
Key Cases Cited
- J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Properties, LLC, 309 Conn. 307 (summary judgment standard and burdens)
- One Country, LLC v. Johnson, 314 Conn. 288 (standing definition and requirements)
- U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Schaeffer, 160 Conn. App. 138 (holder must produce note; presumption of ownership; defendant must rebut)
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn. App. 165 (affidavit averring possession of note satisfies prima facie standing at summary judgment)
- Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570 (mortgage follows the note; holder of endorsed-in-blank note may foreclose)
- Stuart v. Freiberg, 316 Conn. 809 (purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (no evidentiary hearing required on jurisdictional facts unless genuine factual dispute exists)