Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fratarcangeli, 192 Conn.App. 159

In 2005 Fratarcangeli executed a $535,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage recorded April 4, 2005; she later defaulted and foreclosure was commenced in 2016.
Closing was conducted at the defendant’s home by notary Kathleen Salerno, who allegedly did not notarize documents there and did not provide a valid second attesting witness as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-5(a).
Salerno’s husband purportedly served as the second witness outside the defendant’s presence and without her knowledge.
Defendant pleaded special defenses of (1) illegal attestation (fraud by notary/false witness) and (2) unclean hands based on that alleged fraud.
Plaintiff moved to strike both defenses; the trial court granted the motion, concluding the defect was cured by the validating statute § 47-36aa(a)(2) and that unclean hands did not apply.
After a court trial the court entered judgment of strict foreclosure for the plaintiff; defendant appealed the striking of the two defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 47-36aa(a)(2) cures a missing/invalid second attesting witness even when the lack resulted from alleged fraud by a notary	§ 47-36aa(a)(2) automatically validates instruments attested by only one witness unless a timely challenge and lis pendens were filed	The validating act should not validate instruments where the witnessing defect resulted from intentional fraud by the notary	The statute is plain: it cures the one‑witness defect absent a timely challenge; no fraud exception exists, so the special defense was legally insufficient
Whether the doctrine of unclean hands bars foreclosure based on the alleged notary fraud	Plaintiff: foreclosure claim does not depend on or require the alleged prior fraud; plaintiff’s equitable claim is not tainted	Defendant: alleged fraudulent attestation is inequitable conduct that should preclude equitable relief	Court: unclean hands unavailable because plaintiff’s foreclosure claim did not depend on the alleged fraud and the defendant did not allege the misconduct was done directly against her interests

Alexson v. Foss, 276 Conn. 599 (explaining § 47-36aa auto-validation absent timely challenge)
In re Elianah T.-T., 326 Conn. 614 (statutory interpretation: plain and unambiguous language ends inquiry)
Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 273 Conn. 240 (statutory interpretation standard)
Thompson v. Orcutt, 257 Conn. 301 (doctrine of unclean hands and requirements for its application)
Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Klein, 87 Conn. App. 337 (example where § 47-36aa did not cure instrument because a timely challenge and lis pendens were filed)