New Haven Savings Bank v. LaPlace

• Decision Date: 02 October 2001
• Docket Number: (AC 21388)
• Citation: 783 A.2d 1174,66 Conn. App. 1
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: NEW HAVEN SAVINGS BANK, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE v. SIMON R. LAPLACE ET AL.

66 Conn. App. 1

783 A.2d 1174

NEW HAVEN SAVINGS BANK, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE v.SIMON R. LAPLACE ET AL.

(AC 21388)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 11, 2001.

Officially released October 2, 2001.

Landau, Mihalakos and Dranginis, JS.William H. Clendenen, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Nancy L. Walker, for the appellants(defendants).

John J. Resnik, with whom, on the brief, was Emily Resnik Conn, for the appellee(plaintiff).

Opinion

LANDAU, J.

In this foreclosure action, the defendantSimon R. LaPlace appeals¹ from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, New Haven Savings Bank, successor trustee, following the granting of the plaintiffsmotion for summary judgment.On appeal, the defendant claims, in essence,² that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiffsmotion for summary judgment by concluding that (1)the defendant's fiduciary duty defenses and counterclaims were irrelevant, (2)the plaintiff gave proper notice of default and (3)the defendant was required to plead a lack of proper acceleration as a special defense to the foreclosure.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal.In January, 1989, the defendant became indebted to his father, William B. LaPlace, in the amount of $185,000 by executing a promissory note (note) that was secured by a mortgage in that amount on a piece of real property located in Deep River.The defendant's father died, and the note and mortgage were assigned to the William B. LaPlace revocable trust (trust).The life beneficiary of the trust is the defendant's stepmother; the residual beneficiaries of the trust are the defendant and his brother, if the life beneficiary fails to exercise certain rights under the trust.The plaintiff became the successor trustee to the trust.In February, 1998, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant, alleging that the defendant had failed to pay the note according to its terms and that the principal balance of the note, plus interest, costs and fees were due.

In response to the complaint, the defendant denied that he failed to pay the note and that the balance, interest, costs and fees were owing.He also alleged eight special defenses and six counterclaims.As a basis for the special defenses and counterclaims, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff owed him a fiduciary duty, among other things, to preserve the assets of the trust, to deal with the beneficiaries in a fair and equitable manner, to manage the trust in a manner that is in the best interests of the designated beneficiaries and to effect the intent of the settlor of the trust.The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff and the predecessor trustee improperly failed and refused to credit payments made by the defendant, refused to calculate the interest due under the note and mortgage, and rejected funds presented by the defendant to bring the note and mortgage current.The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff reneged on an agreement to bring the note current.

The defendant claims that the various alleged acts of wrongdoing by the plaintiff constituted a breach of a fiduciary duty owed to him, violated the Connecticut Uniform Prudent Investor Act,³ breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violated the common law and various sections of the Connecticut Uniform Commercial Code,⁴ and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.⁵On the basis of the plaintiffs alleged wrongdoing, the defendant claimed by way of special defenses that the court should deny the plaintiff the equitable remedy of foreclosure.Also, on the basis of the plaintiffs wrongdoing, the defendant asserted counterclaims that he has incurred certain damages and losses.He also sought the equitable remedy of an accounting.

The plaintiff filed a motion to strikethe defendant's special defenses and counterclaims as a whole, arguing that they were legally insufficient because they did not raise issues that are proper in a foreclosure action.The court reasoned that if one of the counterclaims or special defenses was legally sufficient, the motion must fail.Taking the allegations of the special defenses and counterclaims as true;seeBell v. Board of Education,55 Conn. App. 400, 402, 739 A.2d 321(1999);the court denied the motion to strike because the defendant alleged payment, which is a traditional defense to a foreclosure action.

After it replied to the defendant's special defenses and counterclaims, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant was liable under the note and that his special defenses and counterclaims were legally insufficient to bar summary judgment.The court granted the motion for summary judgment in the plaintiffs favor, concluding that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the trust is the holder of the note, that the defendant failed to make payments and that the defendant had notice of the acceleration and default on the note.Thereafter, the court ordered foreclosure by sale and set the sale date.The defendant appealed to this court.

"The standards governing our review of a trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment are clear.Practice Book§ 384[now § 17-49] provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.SeeConnecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Carriage Lane Associates,219 Conn. 772, 780-81, 595 A.2d 334(1991);Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co.,219 Conn. 644, 650, 594 A.2d 952(1991);Trotta v. Branford,26 Conn. App. 407, 409, 601 A.2d 1036(1992).While the burden of showing the nonexistence of any material fact is on the party seeking summary judgment;seeD.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly,180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908(1980);the party opposing [summary judgment] must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue....Bassin v. Stamford,26 Conn. App. 534, 537, 602 A.2d 1044(1992).In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.,193 Conn. 313, 317, 477 A.2d 1005(1984)....Cortes v. Cotton,31 Conn. App. 569, 572-73, 626 A.2d 1306(1993).

"Equally well settled is that the trial court does not sit as the trier of fact when ruling on a motion for summary judgment....[T]he trial court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist....Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Galluzzo,33 Conn. App. 662, 666, 637 A.2d 803, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 910, 642 A.2d 1206(1994)....Field v. Kearns,43 Conn. App. 265, 270, 682 A.2d 148, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 942, 684 A.2d 711(1996)."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Rosario v. Hasak,50 Conn. App. 632, 636-37, 718 A.2d 505(1998).

"The scope of our appellate review depends upon the proper characterization of the rulings made by the trial court.To the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether such findings were clearly erroneous.When, however, the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record.Practice Book§ 4061[now § 60-5];United Illuminating Co. v. Groppo,220 Conn. 749, 752, 601 A.2d 1005(1992);Zachs v. Groppo,207 Conn. 683, 689, 542 A.2d 1145(1988);Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester,181 Conn. 217, 221-22, 435 A.2d 24(1980)."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)SLI International Corp. v. Crystal,236 Conn. 156, 163, 671 A.2d 813(1996)."On appeal, the scope of our review of the granting of a motion for summary judgment is plenary."Richter v. Danbury Hospital,60 Conn. App. 280, 286, 759 A.2d 106(2000).⁶First, we must determine whether there is an absence of genuine issues of material fact and, then, whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

I

The defendant's first claim is that the court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff by concluding that the defendant's fiduciary duty special defenses and counterclaims were irrelevant.We are not persuaded.

A

The defendant admits that he executed the note and mortgage and that the documents were assigned to the trust.He denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief that the plaintiff is the successor trustee.In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff produced the document appointing the plaintiff successor trustee.The defendant presented no evidence to contradict the appointment.The defendant also admits that he made payments due on the note through July, 1996.In his brief to this court, the defendant acknowledges that the plaintiff, as administrator of the trust, has authority to enforce the note and mortgage.He argues, however, that because he is a remainderman⁷ under the trust, the plaintiff owes him a fiduciary duty that affects the manner in which it can enforce the mortgage and the note.

More specifically, in his brief, the defendant argues that he should have been permitted to prove the fiduciary duty that the plaintiff owes to him and that if he had prevailed, the plaintiff would have had to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it dealt fairly with him and the trust.The defendant further argues, by some unknown leap of logic, that his allegations of the plaintiffs failure to provide proper notice of default,⁸ miscalculating the amount due,⁹ reneging on its agreement to reinstate the note, refusing...