U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Blowers
Decision Date | 31 October 2017 |
Docket Number | AC 39219 |
Citation | 177 Conn.App. 622,172 A.3d 837 |
Parties | U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee v. Robin BLOWERS, et al. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
P. Solange Hilfinger–Pardo, certified legal intern, with whom were Jeffrey Gentes and, on the brief, Anderson Tuggle, Noah Kolbi–Molinas and Emily Wanger, certified legal interns, for the appellant (defendant Mitchell Piper).
Pierre–Yves Kolakowski, with whom, on the brief, was Zachary Bennett Grendi, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Alvord, Prescott and Pellegrino, Js.
In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Mitchell Piper,1 appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of the First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Pass–Through Certificates, Series 2005–FF10. On appeal, Piper claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' special defenses and counterclaims. Specifically, he contends that the court improperly required the special defenses to directly relate to and the counterclaims to have a sufficient nexus to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note and mortgage. Instead, Piper argues, the court should have applied a "straight-forward version of the transaction test with allowances for equitable considerations" to both the special defenses and counterclaims. Additionally, Piper claims that even if the court did not err in applying the making, validity, or enforcement requirement, the counterclaims and special defenses should have survived a motion to strike under a broad reading of the term "enforcement." Finally, Piper claims that the court erred in its determinations that no binding modification to the defendants' loan existed, that, if such modification existed, the defendants defaulted on the loan, and that all of the plaintiff's alleged misconduct took place during foreclosure mediation. We disagree with Piper contentions and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The defendants executed a promissory note, dated August 2, 2005, in which they promised to pay First Franklin division of National City Bank of Indiana the principal sum of $488,000. To secure the note, the defendants mortgaged their interest in their property located at 129 Stagecoach Road in Avon. The mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff on September 1, 2005.
In February, 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage on the subject property. In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants defaulted under the terms of their note and mortgage, that the plaintiff exercised its option to declare the entirety of the balance due, and that, despite due demand, the defendants failed to pay the balances due and owing. The parties subsequently participated in a foreclosure mediation program but were unable to reach an agreement. On April 17, 2015, the defendants filed an answer, three special defenses and three counterclaims. The counterclaims sounded in negligence; violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42–110a et seq. ; and unjust enrichment. The special defenses sounded in equitable estoppel, unjust enrichment, and unclean hands. On July 17, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendants' special defenses and counterclaims, which was granted by the court on December 28, 2015. Thereafter, the court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, 64 Conn.App. 9, 12–13, 779 A.2d 198 (2001).
We first address Piper's claim that the court improperly struck the defendants' special defenses, namely, equitable estoppel and unclean hands.2 Piper contends that the court failed to apply properly the transaction test when reviewing the special defenses. Instead, he argues, the court improperly narrowed the transaction test by requiring the defendants' special defenses to relate to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note or mortgage.
The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. Shortly after the defendants defaulted on their mortgage payments in January, 2010, a servicing agent for the plaintiff reached out to the defendants offering a "rate reduction." After the defendants successfully completed a three month trial modification period, however, the plaintiff withdrew its offer to modify the loan. The plaintiff continued to offer loan modifications, but no offers resulted in a final, binding modification to the defendants' mortgage. Following the defendants' failure to cure the debt, the plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action.
In their answer, special defenses, and counterclaims filed on April 17, 2015, the defendants claimed, in relevant part, that throughout the foreclosure mediation and loan modification negotiation period, the plaintiff hindered their ability to obtain a proper loan modification. As a result, the defendants claimed, the amount that the plaintiff sought to recover from them in connection with the foreclosure action unnecessarily increased. Additionally, the defendants claimed that the plaintiff and its servicing agent failed to conduct themselves in a manner that was fair, equitable, and honest during the mediation and loan modification negotiation period.
We begin by setting forth the relevant legal principles. "In addition to challenging the legal sufficiency of a complaint or counterclaim, our rules of practice provide that a party may challenge by way of a motion to strike the legal sufficiency of an answer, including any special defenses contained therein ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn.App. 165, 179–80, 73 A.3d 742 (2013). "The purpose of a special defense is to plead facts that are consistent with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
TD Bank, N.A. v. M.J. Holdings, LLC, 143 Conn.App. 322, 326, 71 A.3d 541 (2013). (Citations omitted.) Fortini v. New England Log Homes, Inc., 4 Conn.App. 132, 134–35, 492 A.2d 545, cert. dismissed, 197 Conn. 801, 495 A.2d 280 (1985).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) LaSalle National Bank v. Freshfield Meadows, LLC, 69 Conn.App. 824, 833–34, 798 A.2d 445 (2002).
In the present case, neither of the defendants' special defenses at issue directly attacks the making, validity, or enforcement of the note or mortgage. See CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rey, 150 Conn.App. 595, 603, 92 A.3d 278, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 905, 99 A.3d 635 (2014). All events giving rise to the special defenses took place during the loan modification negotiation period or during foreclosure mediation. This court previously has held that alleged improper conduct occurring during mediation and modification negotiations lacked "any reasonable nexus to the making, validity or enforcement of the mortgage or note ...." U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Sorrentino, 158 Conn.App. 84, 97, 118 A.3d 607, cert. denied, 319 Conn. 951, 125 A.3d 530 (2015). By contrast, if the modification negotiations ultimately result in a final, binding, loan modification, and the mortgagee subsequently breaches the terms of that new modification, then any special defenses asserted by the mortgagor in regard to that breach would relate to the enforcement of the mortgage. In the present case, however, no binding modification was ever agreed upon by the parties. Accordingly, the special defenses raised by the defendants do not relate to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note or mortgage.
Piper attempts to circumvent the fact that the defendants' special defenses do not relate to the making, validity, or enforcement of the note or mortgage by arguing that the broader transaction test set forth in Practice Book § 10–10 applies to their special...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Blowers
...following the trial court's decision striking the defendant's special defenses and counterclaims. See U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers , 177 Conn. App. 622, 638, 172 A.3d 837 (2017). The defendant's principal claim is that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that such allegations c......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Eichten
...of the note or mortgage," and, thus, could not be joined properly with the complaint. Recently, in U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers , 177 Conn. App. 622, 625–26, 172 A.3d 837, cert. granted, 328 Conn. 904, 177 A.3d 1160 (2018), an appeal from a judgment of strict foreclosure, this court ......
-
Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Ahmed A. Dadi & Sec'y Development
...under Connecticut law going to "the making, validity, or enforcement of the original note or mortgage." U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Blowers, 177 Conn. App. 622, 635 (2017); Homecomings Fin. Network, Inc. v. Starbala, 85 Conn. App. 284, 289 (2004) (past payment is a defense); Citimortgage, Inc.......
-
Karagozian v. USV Optical, Inc.
...299 Conn. 908, 10 A.3d 525 (2010). Our review of the court's ruling on a motion to strike is plenary. U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers , 177 Conn. App. 622, 627, 172 A.3d 837 (2017), cert. granted on other grounds, 328 Conn. 904, 177 A.3d 1160 (2018)."The constructive discharge concept o......