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.