HSBC Bank USA, National Assn. v. Nathan
Citations
- 195 Conn. App. 179
Syllabus
The plaintiff bank, H Co., sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendants L and W and the defendant trust, who filed special defenses and a counterclaim. Specifically, they alleged, inter alia, that the equitable doctrine of laches applied to the plaintiff's conduct and that the plaintiff had violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.). The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the first amended laches defense and the counterclaim in its entirety. L and W and the trust then filed a second amended counterclaim and special defenses, in which, inter alia, they repleaded four counts of their first amended counterclaim and repleaded laches as a special defense. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the second amended laches defense and the counterclaim in its entirety and, subsequently, rendered judgment of strict foreclosure, from which L and W and the trust appealed to this court. On appeal, they claimed that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's first motion to strike as to the nonrepleaded counts and the second motion to strike the second amended laches defense and second amended counterclaim. The plaintiff claimed that certain nonrepleaded counts of their first amended counterclaim as well as a special defense of unclean hands had been abandoned. Held: 1. Contrary to the plaintiff's claim, L and W and the trust preserved their right to appeal the nonrepleaded counts of their first amended counter- claim: the correct course of action for a litigant to take in order to preserve appellate rights as to a stricken pleading is to forgo pleading over, await the rendering of a final judgment and appeal therefrom, and the defendants' statement in their objection to the plaintiff's second motion to strike that they were not reasserting counts involving only postdefault conduct was a decision by the defendants, in an effort to preserve their appellate rights, not
Judges: Bright; Moll; 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.