According to the article, Governor Rell is proposing lifting the mandatory 18 percent penalty charged to property owners who are late on payment of their taxes. The theory being that this would provide municipalities much needed cash.

My question is what happens to lien holders who are not the municipality?

Towns across Connecticut sell property tax liens to private investors at auction.

A purchaser of municipal tax  liens ”steps into the shoes” of the town having all of the same rights as the town - including the right to 18% interest per year. Further, a purchaser of those liens can take possession of the property through the initiation of a foreclosure action.

Would legislation providing amnesty on municipal tax liens would amnesty apply to property owners whose liens have been sold to private parties?

If the legislature gives amnesty who are delinquent on their property taxes then it will be taking from those who purchased the liens expecting a return on their investment.

On the other hand, if the legislature only applies amnesty to liens held by municipalities then only some property owners would receive amnesty while others would still have to pay interest at a rate of 18% per year.

It will be interesting to see how the legislature sorts out this issue.

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.