U.S. Bank v. Booker
| Docket Number | AC 45473 |
| Decision Date | 01 August 2023 |
| Parties | U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, TRUSTEE v. LINDA BOOKER ET AL. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Argued April 10, 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 New Haven, where the court, Spader, J., granted the motion filed by the plaintiff Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee of ARLP Securitization Trust, Series 2015-1 to substitute U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust as the plaintiff; thereafter, the court, Cordani, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability against the named defendant et al. and rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure; subsequently, the court, Baio, J., denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the named defendant et al. and the named defendant et al. appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal as moot; thereafter our Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal filed by the named defendant et al.; subsequently, the court, Cirello, J., denied the motion to open the judgment filed by the named defendant et al., from which the named defendant et al. appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Thomas P. Willcutts, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
William Dziedzic, with whom, on the brief, was Adam L Avallone, for the appellee (plaintiff).
OPINION
In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Linda Booker and Ulish Booker, Jr., appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust.[1]The defendants claim that the court erred in denying their motion to open the judgment because the court improperly decided not to exercise its discretion and afford them relief in connection with the grounds of mistake and fraud raised therein.[2] The plaintiff argues that this court should dismiss the appeal because (1) the defendants' appeal is moot, as title in the mortgaged property has vested in the plaintiff, and (2) the defendants should not be allowed to raise their claim of error because it could have been raised in the defendants' prior appeal in this action. The plaintiff also argues that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to open. We reject the plaintiffs jurisdictional and reviewability arguments and conclude that the court properly denied the defendants' motion to open. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.
The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On April 25, 2017, the original plaintiff, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee of ARLP Securitization Trust, Series 2015-1 (Wilmington Trust), filed a complaint against the defendants, alleging the following facts: On March 30, 2006, the defendants were indebted to New Century Mortgage Corporation (New Century) in connection with a promissory note executed in favor of New Century in the amount of $231,920. The note was secured by a mortgage, executed by the defendants, on their property located in West Haven. Seven years later, the defendants negotiated with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen),[3] for a loan modification and signed an agreement dated December 9, 2013, the terms of which increased the principal debt balance to $400,706.05 and reduced the interest rate to 6 percent (2013 loan modification agreement). Ocwen did not sign the 2013 loan modification agreement.
Following a series of assignments, Wilmington Trust became the assignee of the mortgage and, therefore, was entitled to collect the debt evidenced by the note and was entitled to enforce the mortgage. As of April 1, 2014, the defendants were in default on the note and mortgage because of nonpayment of the monthly installments of principal and interest. Wilmington Trust thereafter exercised its option to declare the entire balance of the note due and payable and sought strict foreclosure of the defendants' mortgaged property.
The record reflects the following additional procedural history. On June 29, 2017, Wilmington Trust assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff and, on January 11, 2018, moved to substitute it as the plaintiff in this action. On January 26, 2018, Wilmington Trust moved for a judgment of strict foreclosure of the defendants' mortgaged property. On January 29, 2018, the court, Spader, J., granted Wilmington Trust's motion to substitute the plaintiff as the party plaintiff. On May 9, 2018, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to liability, and the court, Hon. Anthony V. Avallone, judge trial referee, denied the motion without prejudice due to a discrepancy with the assignments of the mortgage as set forth in the plaintiffs complaint.[4] On September 28, 2018, the plaintiff filed a subsequent motion for summary judgment as to liability. On January 7, 2019, the court, Cordani, J., granted the September 28, 2018 motion for summary judgment. On January 25, 2019, the defendants, in a self-represented capacity, filed a motion to reargue the September 28, 2018 motion for summary judgment. On February 4, 2019, the court, Cordani, J., denied the defendants' motion to reargue and rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure for the plaintiff, setting the law day for April 22, 2019. On April 22, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to open the judgment and extend the law day. On April 22, 2019, the court, Cordani, J., denied their motion and reset the law day to May 20, 2019.
On May 14, 2019, Ulish Booker, Jr., filed a bankruptcy petition pursuant to chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which resulted in an automatic stay of the law day. On April 2, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed his bankruptcy case. On November 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion to reenter the strict foreclosure judgment and set a new law day. On January 25, 2021, the court, Baio, J., held a hearing and granted the plaintiffs motion, setting the law day for March 22, 2021.[5]On February 16, 2021, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the granting of strict foreclosure, arguing that they did not receive proper notice of the January 25, 2021 hearing and that the plaintiff lacked standing due to the discrepancy with the assignments of the mortgage as set forth in the complaint.[6] On March 11, 2021, the court, Baio, J., denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. On March 16, 2021, the defendants filed a motion pursuant to Practice Book § 10-33 to open and vacate the judgment of strict foreclosure on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the discrepancy with the assignments of the mortgage. In their March 16, 2021 motion to open the judgment, for the first time in this action, the defendants also argued that the debt amount found in the strict foreclosure judgment was different than the amount alleged in the complaint. On March 18, 2021, the defendants filed their first appeal in this action (first appeal), claiming that the court erred in denying their February 16,2021 motion for reconsideration.
On March 24, 2021, title in the property vested in the plaintiff. On April 9, 2021, the defendants, who had been self-represented until this time, retained counsel.
On May 4, 2021, this court, in the first appeal, ordered the parties, sua sponte, to file memoranda of law as to why the defendants' appeal should not be dismissed as moot because the law day had passed and title had vested in the plaintiff. On May 26, 2021, after reviewing the memoranda of law submitted by the parties, this court dismissed the defendants' appeal as moot. On August 17,2021, the defendants petitioned our Supreme Court for certification to appeal, which was denied on October 26, 2021.
On February 25, 2022, the defendants, through counsel, filed a memorandum of law in support of their March 16, 2021 motion to open the judgment. Therein, the defendants claimed that the court made a fundamental mistake by relying on an incorrect principal debt amount, taken from the plaintiffs affidavit of debt, when rendering its judgment of strict foreclosure. Specifically, the defendants alleged that the court erred by using the principal debt amount of $400,706.05, in accordance with the proposed 2013 loan modification agreement, instead of the original principal debt amount of $231,920, as alleged in the complaint. The defendants argued that the court has equitable jurisdiction to correct a fundamental mistake under our Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Roihermel, 339 Conn. 366, 373, 260 A.3d 1187 (2021). On March 14, 2022, the plaintiff filed an objection to the defendants' March 16, 2021 motion to open, arguing that the defendants' claim of error did not warrant the exercise of the court's equitable jurisdiction to open the judgment.
On April 14, 2022, the trial court, Cirello, J., held a hearing on the defendants' March 16, 2021 motion to open the judgment and denied the motion.[7] In its order of April 14, 2022, denying the motion, the court stated that, This appeal followed.
On May 13,2022, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this appeal,...
To continue reading
Request your trial