U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., TRUSTEE v. LESLEY DALLAS ET AL.
(AC 45003)
Appellate Court of Connecticut
June 28, 2022
Moll, Cradle and Eveleigh, Js.
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification аnd technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the еvent of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritаtive.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express writtеn permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the named defendant, D. D filed special defenses, asserting, inter alia, that the plaintiff engaged in residential mortgagе fraud and fraud in the inducement. The trial court granted the plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment as to liability against D, determining that the plaintiff had established a prima faciе case as to liability and that D failed to submit any evidence to support her special defenses. Thereafter, the trial court rendered a judgment оf strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff, from which D appealed to this court. Held that the trial court properly granted the plaintiff‘s motion for summаry judgment; because the trial court aptly addressed the arguments raised in this appeal in its memorandum of decision, this court adopted the trial court‘s thorough and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.
Argued May 11-officially released June 28, 2022
Procedural History
Action to foreclоse a mortgage on certain real property owned by the named defendant, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield, where the court, J. Moore, J., granted the plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment as to liability against the named defendant and rendered judgment of strict foreclosure, from which the named defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Frank B. Velardi, Jr., for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion
The following facts and procedural history are revealed by the record. On November 2, 2005, the defendant executed a promissory note in the amount of $650,000 payable to the order of Chase Bank USA, N.A., and secured by a mortgage on the property located at 1 Skiff Mountain Road in Sharon. The mortgage and the notе eventually were assigned to the plaintiff before it commenced this action.
On February 11, 2016, the plaintiff commenced the present foreclosure action by way of a complaint alleging that the mortgage and promissory note executed by the defendant are now in default by virtue of her failure to pay the monthly installments of principal and interest due on January 1, 2009, and on the first day of each month thereafter. On October 25, 2017, the defendant filed her operative revised special defenses, which asserted, inter alia, that the plaintiff engaged in residential mortgage fraud (first special defense) and fraud in thе inducement (fourth special defense).2 Both of these special defenses generally allege that the plaintiff “forged, fabricated, and robo-signеd” documents it knew were untrue and made false representations to the defendant during the mortgage process.
On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability only against the defendant. In support of its motion, the plaintiff attached a series of documents evincing that it was the holder of the note аnd mortgage, that the defendant was in default, and that the defendant‘s special defenses were legally insufficient. On August 7, 2019, the defendant filed an objection and а memorandum of law in opposition to the plaintiff‘s motion in which she argued that her first and fourth special defenses precluded judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant submitted only her own affidavit in support of her objection.
On May 24, 2021, the court, J. Moore, J., after a hearing, issued an order and memorandum of decision granting the plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment as to liability only. In its memorandum of decision, the court reviewed the plaintiff‘s claims, the defendant‘s special defеnses, and the relevant legal authority, followed by a thorough analysis of the legal issues presented. The court determined that the documents submitted by the plаintiff established a prima facie case as to liability and that there was nothing in the defendant‘s
On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment as to liability only becаuse it erred in determining that
In this opinion the other judges concurred.