HSBC Bank USA, National Assn. v. Karlen
Citations
- 195 Conn. App. 170
Syllabus
The plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendant C, who, together with the defendant K, had executed a certain promissory note in 2006, which was secured by a mortgage on the subject property. In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the note was affected by a 2010 loan modification agree- ment, that the mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff in 2012, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note, that the note was in default for nonpayment, and that the plaintiff had elected to accelerate the balance due on the note and to declare the note due in full. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability and attached an affidavit from D, the vice president for loan documentation for the plaintiff's servicing agent, who attested concerning the history of the 2006 note, including averring that the defendants had defaulted on the note by failing to make their May, 2013 payment or any payment there- after. D attached to her affidavit a copy of the 2006 note and mortgage, the 2012 assignment and a notice of default letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendants in November, 2013, but she did not mention or attach the 2010 loan modification agreement. The defendants did not file an objection to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability and, thereafter, rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale, from which the defendants appealed to this court. Held that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, the plaintiff having failed to establish an undisputed prima facie case for foreclosure: despite the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, D's supporting affida- vit and the attached documents regarding the defendants' default on the 2006 loan, the plaintiff pleaded that a 2010 loan modification agreement affected the 2006 note but, thereafter, failed to provi
Judges: Elgo; Bright; Devlin
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.