Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Virgulak
Decision Date | 11 January 2022 |
Docket Number | SC 20403 |
Citation | 267 A.3d 753,341 Conn. 750 |
Parties | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. Robert J. VIRGULAK et al. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Brian D. Rich, with whom, on the brief, was Laura Pascale Zaino, Hartford, for the appellant (substitute plaintiff).
Alexander H. Schwartz, Southport, for the appellee (defendant Theresa Virgulak).
Jeffrey Gentes and J.L. Pottenger, Jr., and Chaarushena Deb, Sophie Laing, Zaria Noble, Stefanie Ostrowski and Emily Coady, law student interns, filed a brief for the Housing Clinic of the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization as amicus curiae.
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
The plaintiff, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T Bank),1 appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court in favor of the defendant Theresa Virgulak.2 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court because (1) the trial court improperly declined the plaintiff's request to reform a mortgage deed to reference that the mortgage deed executed by the defendant was given to secure a note executed by her husband, Robert J. Virgulak (Robert), and (2) even if the trial court properly denied the request to reform the mortgage deed, it incorrectly determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to foreclose the mortgage executed by the defendant because the defendant was not a borrower on the note. We disagree with the plaintiff and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. "On or about December 11, 2006, Robert ... executed and delivered to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan Chase), a note for a loan in the principal amount of $533,000 (note). The defendant was not a signatory on the note. On the same date, the defendant signed a document titled ‘Open-End Mortgage Deed’ (mortgage [deed]) for residential property she owns at 14 Bayne Court in Norwalk (property). The mortgage [deed] recited that it was given to secure a note dated December 11, 2006, and recited that the note was signed by the defendant as [the] ‘[b]orrower’ in the amount of $533,000. The term ‘[b]orrower’ is defined in the mortgage deed as ‘[Theresa Virgulak, married].’ The mortgage [deed] did not reference Robert. The defendant did not sign any guarantee.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Virgulak , 192 Conn. App. 688, 692–93, 218 A.3d 596 (2019).
(Footnote omitted.) Id., at 693–94, 218 A.3d 596.
Id., at 694, 218 A.3d 596. The trial court ordered the parties to submit posttrial briefs.
Id., at 695–97, 218 A.3d 596. Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court.
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the trial court (1) improperly failed to exercise its discretion to consider the plaintiff's foreclosure claim as independent from its other claims and failed to grant the plaintiff the equitable remedy of foreclosure, (2) improperly declined to reform the mortgage deed, and (3) incorrectly concluded that Hudson's admissions limited the plaintiff's recovery under its unjust enrichment count. See id., at 691–92, 218 A.3d 596. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Id., at 722, 218 A.3d 596. It concluded, inter alia, that the trial court (1) "did not ignore the plaintiff's claim for foreclosure"; id., at 700–701, 218 A.3d 596 ; (2) properly "declined to grant foreclosure of the mortgage without reformation because it determined that the mortgage [deed], as executed, was a nullity because it secured a nonexistent debt"; id., at 703, 218 A.3d 596 ; see id., at 705, 218 A.3d 596 ; (3) did not abuse its discretion by declining to reform the mortgage deed because the plaintiff did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the mortgage deed did not conform to the parties’ agreement; see id., at 706, 218 A.3d 596 ; and (4) "did not abuse its discretion in limiting the award under the unjust enrichment count to the property taxes owed to the plaintiff." Id., at 721, 218 A.3d 596.
We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) "Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court's decision declining the plaintiff's request to reform the mortgage deed to reference the fact that the mortgage [deed] executed by the defendant was given to secure a note executed by [Robert]?" And (2) "[i]f the answer to the first certified question is ‘yes,’ did the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court's determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to foreclose the mortgage executed by the defendant because the defendant is not a borrower on the note?" JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Virgulak , 333 Conn. 945, 219 A.3d 375 (2019). Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
We first consider whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed the judgment of the trial court declining to grant reformation of the mortgage deed. The plaintiff asserts that the trial court improperly did not find that the parties intended for the mortgage deed signed by the defendant to secure the note signed by Robert. Therefore, the plaintiff contends, the mortgage deed should be reformed to reflect the parties’ true agreement. The defendant counters that the trial court properly refused to reform the mortgage deed on the basis of the court's factual findings. We agree with the defendant.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Klass v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
-
Winakor v. Savalle
...Appellate review of those issues would call for a clearly erroneous standard of review. See, e.g., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Virgulak , 341 Conn. 750, 760, 267 A.3d 753 (2022). Because the parties in the present case do not dispute the trial court's underlying findings of fact,......