Fighting Back In Foreclosure

I like the underdog 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.

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. Good for the homeowner.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

About Ryan McKeen

Ryan McKeen is an attorney engaged in the practice of law at the firm of Leone, Throwe, Teller & Nagle in East Hartford Connecticut.
This entry was posted in A Connecticut Law Blog, Foreclosure, Litigation and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Fighting Back In Foreclosure

  1. Peter G says:

    Great story! We need a lot more lawyers representing homeowners to be that aggressive in defense of their clients.

    Reply

  2. Gordon Locke says:

    The Defendant's counsel was/is correct. The burden is on the foreclosing lender and/or the note holder to prove his case, including the facts surrounding the making of the loan, the validity of the loan and the title of the present party in interest, if it is not the original mortgagee. It should be noted that presumably, the plaintiff could, for good cause shown, have had obtained a protective order to have the depositions taken in California at the lender's expense

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>