Fighting Foreclosure In Connecticut Courts
I’ve posted here before about what happens on Connecticut’s foreclosure dockets.
I like the underdog (not so fast Rays) and I like good lawyering.
A few months ago, I was waiting for my case to be called on the foreclosure docket when I saw a lawyer fight back on behalf of his client.
I’m not sure of the lawyer’s name or the name of the case but whoever he is – he pushed back against the tidal wave that is the foreclosure mess in Connecticut.
You see, when his client received the foreclosure notice he filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, negligent lending and CUTPA and he didn’t stop there.
He served the lender with discovery requests pertaining to the ownership of the note.
And much to the annoyance of lender’s counsel, he didn’t stop with written discovery, he wanted to depose the officers of the company that wrote the mortgage. The lender was a California company and all of its employees lived in California.
The lender’s attorney argued that a deposition wasn’t necessary. Judge Satter would have none of it.
Seeing this, the lender argued that a video depositon is what the court should order.
Homeowner’s counsel objected to this saying that it is important for him to “size up” a witness which is not something he could do through video conference. Counsel for the lender responded that flying employees to Connecticut for a deposition wouldn’t be fair to the lender due to the expense.
Neither lender’s counsel nor the lawyer for the homeowner would back down.
You know what Judge Satter said to lender’s counsel? He said that they choose to write mortgages in Connecticut. Judge Satter then ordered that the lender had to make its officers available for live deposition in Hartford.
I don’t know what happened to the case or the homeowner’s claims. I do know counsel for the lender was not pleased.
At least in that court, on that day, a homeowner did the unexpected and challenged the lender.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am
It is a beautiful thing to see that lawyer stand up and fight back on behalf of his client. Fortunately for the client, the client had enough funds to retain an attorney, or found an attorney sympathetic to the cause and took the case as a pro bono. Even more refreshing is that Judge Satter ordered the lender to make its officers available for live deposition in Hartford, rather than just rolling over and allowing a video deposition. Unfortunately, cases like these are too few and far in between.
[Reply]
Ryan Reply:
October 17th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Cases like that are far and few between for all the reasons that you mentioned.
Good for Satter.
[Reply]
October 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
[...] 15:02:30 · Reply · View RyanMcKeen: Fighting Foreclosure In Connecticut Courts http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/?p=379 2008-10-17 14:55:14 · Reply · View foreclosurehome: New blog post: Fundamentals of [...]
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Foreclosure is the state court judicial process that the bank, mortgage company, finance company, taxing authority or creditor utilizes to repossess your home. Foreclosures generally take three to four months, most commonly ending with a law day or foreclosure by sale. The only certain way to stop a foreclosure is full payment of the arrearage, or the filing of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
—————————————————
Jennifer
http://www.talkinghomeloans.com
[Reply]
March 13th, 2009 at 8:24 am
It's good real story that will provide us real experience in future. lemon law lawyer southern california is providing us a good solution.
Thanx
[Reply]
May 14th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Well hooray for Judge Satter.
I have Judge Holzberg who has been tolerant of my motions.
But counsel is getting a bit worn thin.
Problem in Connecticut is that you can ask to produce the note and you get an affidavit saying it is lost. Which lends to the object of HOW CAN YOU LOOSE AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT like that. It is laziness. Then you have the argument that the Note follows the Mortgage. In CT that is the way they do it. Then when you ask to see the transfer of ownership that establishes the Plaintiff as to its legal standing you get directed back to a party’s right to discovery and accused of going on a fishing expedition and given cites like Muti v New Haven 24 Conn.Supp. 452,454,194 A2d 447 (1963). HELLO this is 2010. In Connecticut you cannot change the way they do things. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. The Banks have all the rights.
Does anyone have a pro bono attorney that will help. Seems all the pro bono’s are not available here in CT.
Ray Sabb
Cromwell, CT
rsabb@comcast.net
[Reply]