U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Madison
Citations
- 341 Conn. 809
Syllabus
The defendant appealed from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court following the termination of a stay in the defendant's bankruptcy case. The trial court had ruled that the defendant lacked standing to raise a defense in the foreclosure action that she failed to identify as an asset of the estate in the schedule of assets that she filed in her bankruptcy case, which was being adjudicated while the foreclosure action was pending. The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court's ruling and affirmed the judgment of strict foreclosure. The defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court, claim- ing that the Appellate Court improperly treated a defense to a foreclosure action as being the same as claims and counterclaims, which, under the United States Bankruptcy Code, are property of the bankruptcy estate that must be disclosed. Held that the defendant's appeal was dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted, this court having determined, after examining the record and considering the par- ties' briefs and arguments, that there was no useful purpose in answering the certified question, the practical import of which was not apparent: the defendant's claim on appeal failed to characterize the Appellate Court's holding properly and to address the applicable legal issues, the parties' focus on whether the case law regarding nondisclosed claims and counterclaims in bankruptcy actions applied to nondisclosed defenses provided no useful guidance to this court on how to address the issues that arose from the Appellate Court's decision, and the parties failed to address whether a defense to a foreclosure proceeding is prop- erty under Connecticut law, whether the Appellate Court correctly con- cluded that, to the extent such a defense was not property, the defendant's failure to disclose constituted a misrepresentation of the property's value, and what remedy should follow from such a misrepre- sentation; mor
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
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.