Caldrello v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re Caldrello)
| Decision Date | 27 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-20006 JJT,Adv. Pro. Case 22-02007 (JJT) |
| Parties | IN RE: SANDRA VOGEL CALDRELLO, DEBTOR. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DEFENDANT. SANDRA VOGEL CALDRELLO, PLAINTIFF, |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Connecticut |
Before the Court is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("Wells Fargo") Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 11 (the "Motion"). Sandra Vogel Caldrello ("Caldrello") is the pro se Debtor in the underlying Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and the pro se Plaintiff in this Adversary Proceeding. Caldrello's Complaint is yet another chapter in an unrelenting, abusive, and frivolous crusade, which has called on resources from multiple courts, to overturn final state court judgments of foreclosure that were fully litigated and rendered against her.
Caldrello's claims in this case mirror those she advanced in Wells Fargo's 2012 action to foreclose on Caldrello's home in which the Connecticut Superior Court ("Superior Court") granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo and issued a judgment of strict foreclosure (the "Foreclosure Judgment"). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A v. Caldrello, No. KNL-CV12-6014902-S, 2016 WL 401645 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2016) (the "Foreclosure Action").[1] On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court issued a thorough and comprehensive decision denying Caldrello's request to overturn the Foreclosure Judgment on various grounds. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Caldrello, 192 Conn.App. 1 (2019). Caldrello moved for reconsideration en banc, but the Appellate Court denied her request.[2] Caldrello then petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court for review, but it denied certiorari. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Caldrello, 334 Conn. 905 (2019).
Wells Fargo has advanced pointed arguments supporting dismissal of Caldrello's Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Wells Fargo asserts that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction because Caldrello has previously litigated the claims alleged in her Complaint over the last ten years, first in the Superior Court and then in the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Courts, such that this Court cannot sit in review of those state court judgments. In the same vein, Wells Fargo argues that Caldrello is collaterally estopped from pursuing issues already decided in the Foreclosure Action because those issues were fully litigated and were essential to the final judgment on the merits rendered in the Foreclosure Action and subsequent appeals. Finally, Wells Fargo argues that all seven counts of the Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because they either state unrecognized causes of action, fail to include plausible factual allegations under the Iqbal/Twombly or Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) standards, or are time-barred based on the allegations on the face of the Complaint. In sum, Wells Fargo's Motion is a persuasive and well-defined assault on Caldrello's entire Complaint.
Caldrello has nonetheless vigorously defended her Complaint in response to the Motion by ostensibly amending her claims and seeking, yet again, to relitigate issues from the Foreclosure Action. See Pl.'s Amend. Claims in Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No 22; Pl.'s Addendum, ECF No. 23; Pl.'s Resp. to Email from Wells Fargo, ECF No. 25 (collectively, the "Response"). Although not labeled as an "opposition" or "objection" to the Motion, the Court will construe Caldrello's Response as a request to deny Wells Fargo's Motion. What is clear from Caldrello's filings is that she feels she is the victim of serious errors by the Superior Court in the Foreclosure Action and feels this Court has a responsibility to redress her purported injuries. But she goes even further, claiming in effect that the entire legal system is rigged against her. As a consequence of her unrelenting litigation and refusal to make monthly payments, her principal mortgage debt of $481, 529.48 owed to Wells Fargo has ballooned to at least $788, 570.71.[3]
This Court has committed substantial time and effort in patiently providing Caldrello with an appropriate explanation of the law, and an opportunity to be heard and present testimony to advance her arguments. The Court previously held a hearing on Caldrello's Objection to Wells Fargo's Proof of Claim filed in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case on April 6, 2022, in which she advanced the very same arguments as those voiced in response to Wells Fargo's Motion in this case. After hearing extensive argument and testimony, the Court issued a dispositive ruling concluding that Caldrello's Objection was an inappropriate attack on the presumptive validity of Wells Fargo's Proof of Claim, the validity of which was further validated by final judgments in the state court. Ruling on Debtor's Mot. to Strike Proof of Claim, BR-ECF No. 68 (the "Prior Ruling").[4]
On April 28, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Wells Fargo's Motion and cautioned Caldrello that her response to the Motion must be well-founded and based on relevant issues of fact and law. Further, the Court urged Caldrello to seek legal counsel after reiterating that it was patently obvious that this Adversary Proceeding seeks to relitigate issues that had been argued and disposed of several times before. After a thorough review of the parties' filings, the Superior Court foreclosure docket, the decision from the Connecticut Appellate Court affirming the grant of summary judgment in Wells Fargo's favor, Caldrello's Chapter 13 bankruptcy docket, and the record in this case, the Court finds that Wells Fargo's Motion completely and undeniably forecloses any of the requested relief in Caldrello's Complaint. Accordingly, Wells Fargo's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and Caldrello's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
On February 9, 2007, Caldrello executed a mortgage on property known as 939 Pequot Avenue, New London, Connecticut (the "Property") in favor of World Savings Bank, FSB ("WSB"). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 5, ECF No. 1. The Mortgage secured a promissory note executed by Caldrello and made payable to WSB. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Caldrello, 192 Conn.App. 1 (2019). On August 31, 2012, after Caldrello had defaulted on the loan, Wells Fargo commenced the Foreclosure Action in Connecticut Superior Court. See Compl. ¶ 5. Caldrello moved to dismiss the Foreclosure Action, filed two motions for summary judgment, and filed counterclaims. The Superior Court denied each of these motions and struck her counterclaims. See Caldrello, 192 Conn.App. at *6.
On June 15, 2016, Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment in the Foreclosure Action. Compl. ¶ 5. Caldrello objected and Wells Fargo filed a reply. On December 2, 2016, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo as to liability only. Id. After multiple delays, including two requests for judicial recusal, the Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing and entered the Foreclosure Judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on September 11, 2017. Id. ¶ 18.
On August 20, 2019, after Caldrello filed an appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court resoundingly affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. See Caldrello, 192 Conn.App. at *35. Caldrello moved for reconsideration en banc, but the Appellate Court denied her request.[6] Caldrello then filed a petition for certiorari to the Connecticut Supreme Court, but that request was denied as well on December 5, 2019. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Caldrello, 334 Conn. 905 (2019) (). Upon remand to the Superior Court, after a series of continuances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Superior Court reset the foreclosure law day to January 11, 2022.
On January 6, 2022, Caldrello filed a voluntary petition for relief in this Court under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Petition, BR-ECF No. 1. She subsequently filed this Adversary Proceeding on January 27, 2022, asserting seven counts against Wells Fargo, which included fraud in factum, fraud in the making of the note, disgorgement, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment and failure to disclose, statute of limitations, and deception. Wells Fargo has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court held a pretrial conference on April 28, 2022 to address the Motion in light of this Court's Prior Ruling that overruled Caldrello's Objection to Wells Fargo's Proof of Claim, which addressed many of the same issues raised in the Motion. Following the hearing, the Court issued an order permitting Caldrello to respond to the Motion so long as her arguments were based on relevant facts and law. Order, ECF No. 18. To the extent Caldrello based her responsive papers on repetitive or frivolous claims, defenses, or contentions, the Court reserved the right to order the Debtor to show cause at a subsequent hearing as to why she should not be subject to sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2) or the Court's inherent authority. The Debtor was further advised to consult legal counsel as to the advisability of her redundant positions in the Adversary Proceeding.
Despite the Court's warning, Caldrello responded to the Motion with multiple filings that ostensibly seek to amend her claims and seek to relitigate issues already decided in the state court proceedings and in this Court's Prior Ruling. In its Reply, Wells Fargo attacked the validity of Caldrello's amended claims and requested that the Court conduct a show cause hearing to consider imposing...
To continue reading
Request your trial