192 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In 2007 Sandra Caldrello executed a $480,000 promissory note payable to World Savings Bank, secured by a mortgage on 939 Pequot Avenue, New London.
- World Savings underwent corporate changes (renamed/reorganized to Wachovia, then conversions/mergers ultimately into Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.). The original note produced to the court was not endorsed when the foreclosure suit began in 2012.
- Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment on liability, submitting the original note plus affidavits from bank employees documenting the corporate mergers and loan transfer history to show Wells Fargo was successor and holder of the note.
- Caldrello opposed, arguing Wells Fargo lacked standing because World Savings had transferred the note to a subsidiary (World Loan) in 2007 and no endorsement from World Loan appeared; she later pointed to a blank endorsement added to the note in 2017 after summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Wells Fargo summary judgment on liability, struck most of Caldrello’s counterclaims (including CUTPA and TILA counts) as time-barred, denied Caldrello’s later motions (including attempts to reargue/obtain subpoenas), and entered a judgment of strict foreclosure. Caldrello appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose (ownership of note) | Wells Fargo produced original note, affidavits and transfer history showing successor-by-merger status and thus holder/owner of the debt | Note had been sold to World Loan; absent an endorsement back to World Savings/Wachovia/Wells Fargo, plaintiff lacked standing | Court: Wells Fargo met prima facie burden; merger and UCC §42a‑3‑207 + 12 U.S.C. §215a(e) made it successor/holder; defendant failed to rebut with admissible evidence — summary judgment affirmed |
| Post‑judgment blank endorsement (newly discovered evidence) | Endorsement did not change standing; it was added after counsel pulled and returned the note | Blank endorsement, added after summary judgment, suggested possible lack of standing when suit commenced and warranted further discovery/new trial | Court: claim not reviewable — inadequate record (no transcript) and motions were treated as reargument; trial court had addressed the issue; no reversible error shown |
| Denial of subpoenas / discovery to investigate endorsement | Plaintiff argued record showed production and courts had denied additional subpoenas as moot or unnecessary | Defendant claimed denial prevented her from testing alleged fabrication of endorsement and standing | Court: inadequately briefed and incomplete record; denial not properly argued for appeal — claim not reviewed |
| Striking CUTPA and TILA counterclaims | Plaintiff argued statutes of limitation barred those counterclaims | Defendant contended claims were timely or tolled and should not have been struck | Court: defendant failed to adequately brief/argue issue on appeal and could not show the trial court erred in finding those counts time‑barred — claim not reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen, 309 Conn. 608 (Conn. 2013) (standard of review on summary judgment and legal conclusions)
- RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224 (Conn. 2011) (affidavits based on business‑record review admissible for summary judgment)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Strong, 149 Conn. App. 384 (Conn. App. 2014) (elements for prima facie foreclosure case)
- U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Schaeffer, 160 Conn. App. 138 (Conn. App. 2015) (presumption that holder is owner of debt and burden on defendant to prove otherwise)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Aubut, 167 Conn. App. 347 (Conn. App. 2016) (summary judgment opposition must recite specific contradictory facts)
- Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1998) (TILA rescission right extinguished after three years)