Park Nat'l Bank v. 3333 Main Llc., 32300.

Citation15 A.3d 1150,127 Conn.App. 774
Decision Date12 April 2011
Docket NumberNo. 32300.,32300.
CourtAppellate Court of Connecticut
PartiesPARK NATIONAL BANKv.3333 MAIN, LLC.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

James M. Nugent, Milford, for the appellant (defendant).Scott D. Rosen, Hartford, for the appellee (substitute plaintiff SA Challenger, Inc.).GRUENDEL, ALVORD and FLYNN, Js.ALVORD, J.

The defendant, 3333 Main, LLC, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Park National Bank, after the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability.1 On appeal, the defendant 2 claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time it commenced the action. 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 reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.

The pleadings, affidavits and other documentary information presented to the court reveal the following facts. On April 27, 2007, the defendant executed a promissory note in the principal amount of $748,000 payable to GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (GreenPoint). The note was secured by a mortgage on real property located at 3333 Main Street in Stratford.

By complaint filed October 31, 2008, the plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action alleging that the defendant defaulted on its payments beginning June 1, 2008. The defendant answered and filed a number of special defenses, including claims that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff lacked standing.

On July 13, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability, attaching an affidavit of Cindy Gruner, in which Gruner identified herself as a commercial loan officer of the plaintiff (first Gruner affidavit). Therein, Gruner stated that GreenPoint had assigned its interest in the note and mortgage to the plaintiff by virtue of an assignment of mortgage dated May 4, 2008, and recorded June 23, 2008 in the Stratford land records, and by “corrective assignment” recorded on March 2, 2009. Attached to that affidavit, however, was only the corrective assignment executed on February 19, 2009 (2009 corrective assignment). The corrective assignment stated it was “effective dated February 29, 2008,” but recorded on March 2, 2009.

The defendant objected to the motion for summary judgment on August 27, 2009, arguing that although the plaintiff alleged it had been assigned GreenPoint's interest in the note and mortgage at some juncture, the only evidence provided to the court was that such assignment was recorded March 2, 2009. Thus, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was not the holder of the note at the time the complaint was filed, October, 2008, which presented a genuine issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff's standing. The defendant argued that the plaintiff provided no evidence allowing the court to determine that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time of the commencement of the action.

On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum of law and supplemental affidavit from Gruner in support of the motion for summary judgment (second Gruner affidavit) in which Gruner claimed that the plaintiff had purchased the note on March 17, 2008. Documents substantiating this date of transfer were not attached to the second Gruner affidavit. Gruner also stated that the plaintiff was currently in possession of the original note, and indicated that a true and complete copy of the note and endorsement was appended to the affidavit. That endorsement, however, was undated and provided only that: “without recourse pay to the order of: [the plaintiff].” Finally, the plaintiff also appended the original assignment of mortgage, which had not been attached to the first Gruner affidavit, and that assignment reflected that it had been executed on February 29, 2008, but notarized on May 4, 2007, and recorded on June 23, 2008 (2008 assignment). The plaintiff claimed that this 2008 assignment included a scrivener's error in the notarized date and the 2009 corrective assignment was filed to remedy this error.

On January 22, 2010, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court held that there was “no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the note at the time of the commencement of the instant foreclosure action.” 3 On May 10, 2010, the court rendered judgment of strict foreclosure and set the law day for August 10, 2010.

The defendant appeals the judgment of foreclosure based on the granting of summary judgment as to liability. The defendant claims that it was improper for the court to grant the motion for summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff owned the note at the time it commenced the action and, thus, lacked standing, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that the court improperly rendered judgment without first resolving the issue of standing.

Our resolution of the defendant's appeal is governed by a well established standard of review. We have long held that because [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary.... Moreover, [i]t is a fundamental rule that a court may raise and review the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time.... Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it.... [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction.... The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal.... 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.... The court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ajadi v. Commissioner of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mujo v. Jani-King Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 9 Septiembre 2021
    ......Appraisal Grp., LLC v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act , 324 Conn. ......
  • Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Creed
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 20 Agosto 2013
    ...must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Park National Bank v. 3333 Main, LLC, 127 Conn.App. 774, 778, 15 A.3d 1150 (2011). “In determining whether a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the inquiry usually does not extend to th......
  • Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Creed, AC 33477
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 20 Agosto 2013
    ...fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Park National Bank v. 3333 Main, LLC, 127 Conn. App. 774, 778, 15 A.3d 1150 (2011). ''In determining whether a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the inquiry usually does not extend to the ......
  • Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hosp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 21 Julio 2020
    ...because it was not a legal entity at the time of the decedent's treatment at the hospital. See Park National Bank v. 3333 Main, LLC , 127 Conn. App. 774, 778, 15 A.3d 1150 (2011) ("Once the question of lack of [subject matter] jurisdiction of a court is raised, [it] must be disposed of no m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT