JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Essaghof
Docket Number | AC 45109 |
Decision Date | 05 September 2023 |
Parties | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. ROGER ESSAGHOF ET AL. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Argued April 25, 2023
Procedural History
Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the named defendant et al., and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk where the defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., was defaulted for failure to appear; thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Hon. Kevin Tierney, judge trial referee judgment of strict foreclosure, from which the named defendant et al. appealed to this court, Lavine Mullins and Mihalakos, Js.; subsequently, the court, Hon. Kevin Tierney, judge trial referee granted the plaintiffs motion for reimbursement of property taxes and insurance premiums, and the named defendant et al. filed an amended appeal; thereafter, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the named defendant et al., on the granting of certification, appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed in part the judgment of this court; subsequently, the court, Spader, J., granted the plaintiffs motion to reset law days and denied the motion to dismiss filed by the named defendant et al., and the named defendant et al. appealed to this court, Elgo, Suarez and Bear, Js., which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the named defendant et al., on the granting of certification, appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted the petition, vacated the judgment of this court, and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration. Affirmed.
Ridgely Whitmore Brown, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
Brian D. Rich, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Elgo, Suarez and Bear, Js.
This foreclosure action returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court. In our prior opinion, this court rejected the various claims raised by the defendants, Roger Essaghof and Katherine Marr-Essaghof,[1] who had appealed from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to reset the law days in accordance with a previous remand order of our Supreme Court. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, 217 Conn.App. 93, 95, 287 A.3d 1124 (2022), vacated, 346 Conn. 909, 288 A.3d 1031 (2023). The defendants thereafter filed a petition for certification with the Supreme Court, in which they challenged only this court's conclusion that the trial court properly had denied their motion to dismiss predicated on the plaintiffs alleged noncompliance with the notice requirement of the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP) set forth in General Statutes § 8-265ee (a).[2]
By order dated February 16, 2023, our Supreme Court granted that petition, vacated the judgment of this court, and remanded the case to us "with direction to reconsider in light of [its] decision in Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope, 345 Conn. 662, 286 A.3d 891 (2022)."[3]See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, 346 Conn. 909, 288 A.3d 1031 (2023). This court then ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the impact of that decision on the present appeal and heard argument from the parties on April 25, 2023. On August 1, 2023, our Supreme Court released its decision in KeyBank, N.A. v. Yazar, 347 Conn. 381, 297 A.3d 968 (2023), which concerns the proper statutory construction of the EMAP notice requirement codified in § 8-265ee (a). Accordingly, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the impact of KeyBank, N.A. v. Yazar, supra, 381, on this appeal. Having considered the defendants' claim in light of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute and were set forth by this court in JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, supra, 217 Conn.App. 93. "In May, 2006, the defendants executed an adjustable rate promissory note in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (Washington Mutual) in the amount of $1.92 million.[4] The loan was secured by a mortgage deed executed by the defendants on residential property in Weston. On June 24, 2008, the defendants executed a loan modification; they defaulted on the loan shortly thereafter. In September, 2008, the plaintiff acquired Washington Mutual and its assets, including the defendants' loan.
(Footnotes in original.) JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, supra, 217 Conn.App. 96-99.
In its memorandum of decision, the court emphasized that, although the issue of the plaintiff's compliance with the EMAP notice requirement had been litigated at the trial held in 2015, the defendants did not raise that issue in their appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure. The court stated: Because the defendants'" 'newly raised' jurisdictional argument was previously argued" before the trial court in 2015 but thereafter abandoned on appeal, the court denied their motion to dismiss.
From that judgment, the defendants appealed to this court, which rejected the various claims raised by the defendants. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, supra, 217 Conn.App. 95. The defendants then petitioned for certification, challenging only this court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial