Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 30600.

• Decision Date: 23 November 2010
• Docket Number: No. 30600.,30600.
• Citation: 9 A.3d 379,125 Conn.App. 201
• Parties: EQUITY ONE, INC. v. Thomas J. SHIVERS.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

9 A.3d 379

125 Conn.App. 201

EQUITY ONE, INC.

v.Thomas J. SHIVERS.

No. 30600.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Sept. 17, 2010.

Decided Nov. 23, 2010.

J. Hanson Guest, with whom was Jeremy Baver, for the appellant (defendant).

David F. Borrino, Farmington, for the appellee (plaintiff).

BEACH, ROBINSON and MIHALAKOS, Js.

PER CURIAM.

The pro se defendant, Thomas J. Shivers, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff, Equity One, Inc., as servicer forNomura Home Equity Loan, Inc. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if it had subject matter jurisdiction, (2) failed to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and (3) rendered judgment in violation of a bankruptcy stay. Because we conclude that, under the facts of this case, the court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of the plaintiff's standing, we need not reach the defendant's second and third claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the defendant's appeal. The plaintiff filed a complaint on June 27, 2007, in which it sought to foreclose a mortgage executed on November 28, 2006, with respect to property at 27 Mountain Street in Vernon that is owned by the defendant. The complaint alleged that, because the defendant failed to make payments required by the note, the plaintiff had elected to declare the entire balance due and to foreclose on the mortgage. On July 19, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for default for the defendant's failure to file a responsive pleading and a motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure. On July 23, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for default. On September 24, 2007, the court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale, with a sale date of January 5, 2008. The sale date was extended twice: the first time it was extended to May 3, 2008, at the request of the plaintiff; the second time it was extended to May 10, 2008, at the request of the committee appointed to conduct the sale. The May 10, 2008, foreclosure sale did not go forward because the defendant filed a bankruptcy petition on May 8, 2008.

After the bankruptcy stay was lifted, the plaintiff filed a motion to reopen and to reenter the judgment on November 7,2008. On November 21, 2008, the defendant filed an objection to the foreclosure, asserting that hewas no longer in default and contending that the plaintiff did not have standing to foreclose the mortgage. The defendant also filed a motion to compel, which requested that the court direct the plaintiff to produce the original note to prove that the plaintiff had standing to institute the foreclosure action. On November24, 2008, the court, Sferrazza, J., heard argument from the parties as to the motion to reopen and to reenter the judgment. At the conclusion of that hearing, the court rendered judgment of strict foreclosure with the law days commencing on January 12, 2009. The defendant appeals from this judgment.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if it had subject matter jurisdiction when he raised the issue of the plaintiff's standing. We agree.

We begin with a brief statement of our well settled principles regarding subject matter jurisdiction. "Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the court's power to hear and decide cases of the general class to which the proceedings at issue belong." Haigh v. Haigh, 50 Conn.App. 456, 460-61, 717 A.2d 837 (1998); Koskoff v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 27 Conn.App. 443, 446, 607 A.2d 1146, cert. granted, 222 Conn. 912, 608 A.2d 695 (1992) (appeal dismissed November 10, 1992). Once the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, it "must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented." Carten v. Carten, 153 Conn. 603, 610, 219 A.2d 711 (1966). "Whenever a court finds that it has no jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case, without regard to previous rulings." Cross v. Hudon, 27 Conn.App. 729, 732, 609 A.2d 1021 (1992).

"In determining whether a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the inquiry usually does not extend to the merits of the case.... Nevertheless, the court must determine whether it has the power to hear the generalclass [of cases] to which the proceedings in question belong.... Because the elements of subject matter jurisdiction are dependent upon both law and fact ... in some cases it may be necessary to examine the facts of the case to determine if it is within a general class the court has power to hear.... Further, [w]hen issues of fact are necessary to...