U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Moncho

Citations

• 203 Conn. App. 28

Syllabus

The plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendants following their default on a promissory note secured by the mortgage. The defendants filed an answer with five special defenses and a counterclaim. After trial, the defendants filed a posttrial brief claiming for the first time that the court was required to deem all of their special defenses as admitted due to the plaintiff's failure to file a reply. In its reply brief, the plaintiff argued that the defendants were not entitled to implied admissions. The plaintiff then filed its reply to the defendants' special defenses, denying each one in turn. The trial court rejected all of the defendants' special defenses and rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, from which the defendants appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court did not err in determining that the defendants were not entitled to implied admissions on their special defenses because the provisions of Practice Book § 10-19 are not always mandatory: the trial court is not bound by an implied admission pursuant to § 10-19 if the implied admission is not brought to its attention at any stage of the trial proceedings; moreover, the plaintiff's failure to reply did not result in any surprise or prejudice to the defendants, as they were placed on notice of the plaintiff's intent to deny the special defenses by the plain- tiff's pretrial brief, which addressed each defense and the grounds on which they were to be challenged, and the special defenses were litigated during trial; furthermore, once made aware of its nonpleading, the plain- tiff filed a timely reply. 2. The trial court did not err in concluding that the plaintiff had standing in the action or in rejecting the defendants' special defense that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course because a note holder is pre- sumed to be the rightful owner of a debt, which satisfies the holder's initial burden with respect to standing: the plaintiff was in p