Global Funding Group, LLC v. Pandolfo
| Decision Date | 01 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | HHDCV196107298S |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | GLOBAL FUNDING GROUP, LLC v. Andrea PANDOLFO |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The plaintiff, Global Funding Group, LLC, commenced this foreclosure action by service of process on the defendant Andrea Pandolfo, on February 13, 2019.[1] In the complaint the plaintiff alleges the following. On February 6, 2014, the defendant executed a commercial mortgage note (note) in the principal amount of $60, 000 in favor of the plaintiff, with a maturity date of February 6, 2016, attached as exhibit A. To secure the note, the defendant executed a commercial mortgage deed (deed) on February 6, 2015, and recorded on February 11, 2015, in volume 3236 at page 171 of the Glastonbury Land Records against the property known as 1051 Manchester Road, Glastonbury, Connecticut (the property). The property description for the property is attached to the plaintiff’s complaint as exhibit B, and the executed mortgage is attached as exhibit C. The defendant is currently in default under the note and mortgage by reason of her failure to pay the loan at maturity or otherwise to timely and fully pay all amounts due. The plaintiff is in physical possession of the original note, mortgage, and related loan documents and was in possession prior to the filing and at the time of the filing of this action. The plaintiff has elected to accelerate the balance due on the note, to declare the note to be due in full, and to foreclose the mortgage securing the note.
On April 5, 2019, the defendant filed an answer, special defenses, and counterclaims to the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant asserts four special defenses and the counterclaim sounds in two counts. The defendant asserts the following special defenses: (1) equitable estoppel, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) unclean hands and (4) fraud. The defendant asserts the following counterclaims: (1) a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (2) a violation of the Connecticut Truth in Lending Act (CT TILA) pursuant to General Statutes § 36a-678.
In the first special defense for equitable estoppel, the defendant alleges that on or about August 8, 2013, she became the owner of the property and had obtained a residential mortgage with Washington Trust Mortgage Company, LLC (Washington Trust). After obtaining title to the property, the defendant met with a representative of the plaintiff to discuss obtaining a second mortgage against her home because the property did not meet the needs of the defendant’s family. The defendant was a consumer seeking funding primarily for personal, family or household uses. Further, the defendant brought written plans to the meeting with the plaintiff to show the addition that she planned to build on her home with the proceeds of the second mortgage. The plaintiff advised that it would work with the defendant to obtain the requested financing however, the plaintiff is not licensed to provide mortgage loans in Connecticut.
On or about February 6, 2015, the plaintiff provided the defendant with a loan in the amount of $60, 000. The loan involves documents titled "Commercial Mortgage Note" and "Commercial Mortgage Deed." The note incorrectly identifies the defendant’s address as 994 North Colony Road, Wallingford, Connecticut. Additionally, the note states, "Borrowers attest that the proceeds of the advances are to be used for general commercial purposes and further waive diligence, demand, and presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest and notice of protest, and notice of any renewals or extensions of this Note." The note also includes a prejudgment remedy waiver indicating that the defendant has waived certain rights, and states, "Borrower acknowledges that the transaction of which this note is a part is a commercial transaction." (Emphasis omitted.) An attached loan affidavit further states, "This transaction is a commercial transaction and is not a consumer transaction." The note required monthly payments of interest commencing on April 1, 2015, with a loan maturity date of February 6, 2016. The mortgage deed also incorrectly identifies the defendant’s address as 994 North Colony Road, Wallingford, Connecticut, and included similar acknowledgments that the transaction to which the mortgage is a part of is a commercial transaction.
The defendant alleges that the plaintiff failed to provide her with the statutory disclosures relating to residential mortgage loans, and that the defendant relied on the plaintiff’s representations that it would provide financing to allow her to build an addition on her home. The defendant used the proceeds from the financing she obtained from the plaintiff to start work on the addition to her home. According to the defendant, the plaintiff should be equitably estopped from collecting upon its loan because the plaintiff wrongly provided commercial financing to the defendant to build an addition to her home without any of the statutory protections provided to homeowners.
In the second special defense for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which incorporates paragraphs 1-20 of her first special defense, the defendant alleges the following. The plaintiff intentionally disguised the consumer loan it provided to the defendant as a commercial loan, and acted with a dishonest purpose in providing the defendant with a commercial loan relating to her home without providing her with the statutory protections afforded to homeowners. The plaintiff acted in bad faith in providing financing to the defendant, and, thus, breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the third special defense of unclean hands, which incorporates paragraphs 1-23 of her second special defense, the defendant alleges the following. The plaintiff has unclean hands, and should be denied a foreclosure of its financing to the defendant.
In the fourth special defense of fraud, which incorporates paragraphs 1-20 of the third special defense, the defendant alleges the following. The plaintiff fraudulently and intentionally disguised the consumer loan it provided to the defendant as a commercial loan. The plaintiff wrongly represented to the defendant that she qualified for the financing it provided to her as a commercial transaction. The plaintiff knew that funds the defendant needed to build an addition on her home failed to qualify as a commercial loan and should be subject to the statutory protections afforded to homeowners when procuring residential financing. The plaintiff made its representations to induce the defendant to obtain commercial financing at unfavorable terms, including without limitation a one-year maturity date. The defendant relied upon the plaintiff’s representation and obtained the financing in which it provided. The defendant did not receive the statutory protections afforded to homeowners and has been harmed by the plaintiff’s fraudulent actions and representations.
In the defendant’s first counterclaim for a violation of CUTPA pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., the defendant alleges the following. The plaintiff lacks any license with the state of Connecticut to provide residential financing to consumers. The plaintiff is a person within the meaning of General Statutes § 42a-110a(3).[2] The defendant is the owner of the property, and she and her family have made the property their home since 2011. On August 8, 2013, the defendant became the owner of the property, and at the same time, she obtained a residential mortgage with Washington Trust. The property did not meet the needs of the defendant’s family, and, thus, she met with a representative of the plaintiff to discuss obtaining a second mortgage against her home. The defendant brought written plans to the meeting showing the addition that she planned to build on the property with the proceeds of a second mortgage. The plaintiff advised the defendant that it would work with her to obtain the requested financing. The defendant was a consumer seeking funding primarily for personal, family, or household uses.
On February 6, 2015, the plaintiff provided the defendant with a loan for $60, 000. The loan involves documents titled, "Commercial Mortgage Note" and "Commercial Mortgage Deed." The note incorrectly identifies the defendant’s address as 994 North Colony Road, Wallingford, Connecticut, and further states, "Borrowers attest that the proceeds of the advances are to be used for general commercial purposes and further waive diligence, demand, and presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest and notice of protest, and notice of any renewals or extension of this Note." The note also includes a prejudgment remedy waiver indicating that the defendant has waived certain rights, and states, "Borrower acknowledges that the transaction of which this note is a part is a commercial transaction." (Emphasis omitted.) The note required monthly payments of interest commencing on April 1, 2015, with a loan maturity date of February 6, 2016. The loan affidavit states, "This transaction is a commercial transaction and is not a consumer transaction."
The mortgage deed also incorrectly identifies the defendant’s address. The mortgage deed includes a prejudgment remedy waiver, which states, "Mortgagor acknowledges that the transaction of which this mortgage is a part, is a commercial transaction." (Emphasis omitted.) The defendant includes the definitions of a residential mortgage loan and secondary mortgage loan pursuant to General Statutes § § 36a-485(26) and (28), respectively. The plaintiff disguised the defendant’s residential mortgage to be used...
To continue reading
Request your trial