Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bretoux
Citations
- 225 Conn. App. 455
Syllabus
The plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendant. The defendant asserted the special defenses of, inter alia, unclean hands and estoppel. He alleged that, commencing one month after he stopped making required payments on the note and continuing for a period of more than three and one-half years, the defendant submitted to C Co., the plaintiff's loan servicer, twenty-five applications to modify the terms of the underlying note and mortgage. Despite C Co.'s continuing encouragement to submit these applications, they all were denied for various reasons, including technical defects. The defendant alleged that the repeated denials caused him to incur additional debt due to the accrual of interest, fees, and other costs associated with his default. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the liability of the defendant, determining, inter alia, that, although the defendant's estoppel defense was legally sufficient, it did not dispel the defendant's liability for defaulting on the mortgage but, rather, only indicated that the amount of the interest, fees, and other costs had increased due to the plaintiff's alleged conduct. With respect to the defendant's unclean hands defense, the trial court found that the defendant failed to provide evidence beyond his own affidavit that proved that the plaintiff had engaged in wilful misconduct. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure and submitted an affidavit of debt that included the interest and fees that had accumulated on the note while the defendant was attempting to secure a loan modification. In response, the defendant filed a motion for a judgment of foreclosure by sale, which included an objection to the amount of the debt described in the affidavit, on the basis that the plaintiff wrongfully had increased the amount of the debt through its own misconduct. The trial court overruled the defendant's objection
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that even if evidence was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, its admission violated the Confrontation Clause because it was testimonial
- holding that Yahoo! Inc. did not act as an agent of the government in searching emails and sending reports to NCMEC
- holding that records of a private company were not testimonial where they were kept “in order to serve business functions that were totally unrelated to any trial or law enforcement purpose”
- holding that Yahoo’s statutory duty under federal law to report to NCMEC “did not impose any obligation to search for child pornography,” but “merely an obligation to report child pornography of which Yahoo[] became aware.”
- recognizing receipt and possession of child pornography in violation of § 2252 as continuing offense
- concluding Yahoo! not acting as government agent when searching for child pornography because it did so for its own interests and government did not control or direct action
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bright; Suarez; Harper
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.