Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
William A. Roper, Jr.
In another terrific new decision released by the Connecticut Court of Appeals last week, the Court reaffirmed its prior rule that a plaintiff must demonstrate standing to foreclose and that standing is required at the commencement of the suit.

The case is:
Park National Bk v. 3333 Main, LLC, No. AC 32300, 127 Conn. App. 774; 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 184

The decision clarifies that the Connecticut Courts have a standing requirement more similar to that of Texas than to that of New York.  The Court quoted extensively from Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction in explaining how Connecticut views standing:
"We have long held that because [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary. . . . Moreover, [i]t is a fundamental rule that a court may raise and review the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. . . . Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it. . . . [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction . . . . The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal. . . . Once the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, [it] must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented. . . . The court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514, 532-33, 911 A.2d 712 (2006).
By contrast, in New York standing must be raised in the defendant's first pleading and Maine has held that standing is a prudential rather than Constitutional requirement in that state.


The decision includes this explanatory language as to the necessity of standing at commencement of a foreclosure suit:
"This court has recently concluded that when the jurisdiction of the court hinges on a factual determination regarding the plaintiff's status as holder of the note at the time of the commencement of the action, the court must determine the pertinent facts necessary to ascertain whether jurisdiction existed and rule on the issue of standing before addressing the merits of the controversyEquity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 125 Conn. App. 201, 206, 9 A.3d 379 (2010); see also Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bialobrzeski, 123 Conn. App. 791, 799-800, 3 A.3d 183 (2010); LaSalle Bank, National Assn. v. Bialobrzeski, 123 Conn. App. 781, 789-90, 3 A.3d 176 (2010)."
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Google Scholar has posted the Park National Bk v. 3333 Main, LLC case with links to many of the the other cases cited therein:

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...