OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Ceslik

202 Conn.App. 445

246 A.3d 18

ONEWEST BANK, N.A.

v.Stephen M. CESLIK, Jr.

AC 41720

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Submitted on briefs September 22, 2020

Officially released February 2, 2021

Stephen M. Ceslik, Jr., self-represented, filed a brief as the appellant (defendant).

Benjamin T. Staskiewicz, filed a brief for the appellee (substitute plaintiff).

Prescott, Suarez and DiPentima, Js.

SUAREZ, J.

The self-represented defendant, Stephen M. Ceslik, Jr.,¹ appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, CIT Bank, N.A.² On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by (1) rejecting his defense of laches when it granted the motion of OneWest Bank, N.A. (OneWest), for summary judgment as to liability, (2) rejecting his postjudgment claim that the plaintiff lacked standing, (3) crediting obviously fraudulent and defective assignments of the mortgage, (4) denying his motion to dismiss the present action on the ground that OneWest initiated a prior identical foreclosure action against the defendant that it subsequently withdrew, and (5) denying him due process in connection with his motion for judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. OneWest commenced the underlying foreclosure action by writ of summons and complaint on July 23, 2015. In the complaint, OneWest alleged that in 2007, the defendant executed and delivered to Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation, a subsidiary of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., a note for a loan not to exceed a maximum principal amount of $440,700. To secure the note, the defendant executed and delivered to Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation a reverse annuity mortgage on his home located in Milford (property). OneWest alleged that it was the holder of the mortgage by virtue of a series of assignments recorded on the Milford land records and that it was also the holder of the note. It further alleged that the note was in default and that, as the holder of the note, it elected to accelerate the balance due on the note, to declare the note to be due in full, and to foreclose on the mortgage securing the note.

The defendant filed an appearance as a self-represented party on August 24, 2015. The parties entered the court-supervised mediation program upon the defendant's request. The mediator filed a final report on March 28, 2016, in which she stated that the case was not settled and terminated the mediation.

The defendant filed an answer on April 25, 2016, in which he admitted that he owned, possessed, and lived at the property. He denied that the note was in default and due in full, and that he was the owner of the equity of redemption of the property. He left OneWest to its proof for the remaining allegations in the complaint. He then raised by way of special defenses that (1) OneWest was barred on the basis of laches from claiming a default on the note, (2) he was never given a right of rescission, which meant the loan remained rescindable, and (3) the mortgage loan was induced by fraud and misrepresentations regarding its terms.

OneWest filed a motion for summary judgment on September 29, 2016, in which it argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's liability under the loan documents. It further argued that the defendant's special defenses were not valid, recognized defenses to a foreclosure action or, alternatively, that they were mere conclusions of law that were unsupported by facts. A hearing on the motion was held on March 13, 2017, at which both parties filed submissions supporting their arguments.

The court granted OneWest's motion for summary judgment as to liability on April 20, 2017. The court issued a memorandum of decision in which it concluded that OneWest had established its prima facie case and that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue of material fact. The court determined that an affidavit submitted by OneWest in support of its motion for summary judgment from Justin Roland, an assistant secretary for the plaintiff,³ supported a finding that OneWest was the holder and in possession of the note, which was endorsed in blank. The court further concluded, on the basis of the affidavit, that no genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to whether OneWest was the owner of the mortgage by virtue of a series of assignments of the original note and mortgage. OneWest attached copies of these assignments to Roland's affidavit and presented them with its motion for summary judgment.

The court rejected the defendant's three special defenses, concluding that they were naked, conclusory statements.⁴ With respect to the defense of laches, which we will discuss in greater detail in part I of this opinion, the court concluded that the defendant's statement lacked specificity as to the facts giving rise to this defense, and, therefore, the defense was legally insufficient. The court further concluded that the second and third defenses did not attack the making, validity, or enforcement of either the note or the mortgage and, thus, were "legally invalid."⁵

The defendant, on May 9, 2017, filed a motion to reargue the granting of the motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on May 14, 2018. On July 12, 2017, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on OneWest's filing and subsequent withdrawal of a prior foreclosure action against him. The court denied this motion on February 20, 2018. On February 27, 2018, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the ruling on OneWest's motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on March 26, 2018.

The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment of strict foreclosure on April 17, 2018. The court granted the motion and rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure on May 14, 2018, setting the law day for July 16, 2018. The defendant filed the present appeal on May 31, 2018. On October 30, 2018, during the pendency of this appeal, the defendant filed a motion for judgment with the trial court in which he argued that the plaintiff lacked standing. The court held a hearing on the motion on January 8, 2019, and denied it on the same date. The defendant did not amend his appeal to include a claim challenging the denial of this motion. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

I

The defendant's first claim is that the court erred in rejecting his special defense of laches when it granted OneWest's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, we decline to reach the merits of this claim.

The following procedural history is relevant to the defendant's claim. As we stated previously in this opinion, in his answer, the defendant alleged three special defenses. At issue in the present claim is the special defense of laches, which the defendant alleged as follows: "[OneWest] is barred in claiming a default based on laches." In its reply to the defendant's answer and special defenses, OneWest denied this special defense.⁶

In its memorandum of law in supported of its motion for summary judgment, OneWest argued that, in light of the materials that it submitted in support of its motion and relevant law, it was entitled to judgment in its favor with respect to liability because it had proved its prima facie case and that a genuine issue of fact with respect to liability did not exist.⁷ OneWest also argued that all of the special defenses raised by the defendant did not preclude summary judgment in its favor. In its memorandum of law, OneWest made clear that, by way of its motion for summary judgment, it was challenging the legal sufficiency of the special defenses. OneWest argued that "[a] motion for summary judgment may in certain circumstances be used to challenge the legal sufficiency of a pleading" and that "[s]pecial defenses [alleging] mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts ... are legally insufficient." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

With respect to the special defense of laches, OneWest argued as follows: "The first special defense asserts that ‘[OneWest] is barred in claiming a default based on laches.’ [OneWest] respectfully submits that this defense is invalid since it is a mere conclusory statement that has no bearing on the making, validity or enforcement of the note/mortgage. Additionally, the burden is on the defendant to establish a laches defense. ... Quite simply, the defendant has not pleaded any facts that would satisfy the elements of laches. Accordingly, the defense is legally insufficient and cannot bar summary judgment in favor of [OneWest]." (Citations omitted.)

In his memorandum of law in opposition to OneWest's motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued in broad terms that the materials that he had submitted to the court in opposition to the motion gave rise to genuine issues of material fact.⁸ He did not attempt to demonstrate that he had paid property taxes and homeowners insurance premiums, as was required by the terms of his mortgage. Specifically, with respect to laches, he argued that the submissions "show that [OneWest and its predecessors in interest] for many years sent the defendant monthly statements showing no balance due and did not send [him] any notices that he was in default, or was required to pay the real estate taxes until shortly before [OneWest] began [its] foreclosure action." The defendant, however, did not respond to the arguments made by OneWest concerning the legal sufficiency of his special defenses. Specifically, he did not argue that the special defense of laches was legally sufficient in that it set forth necessary facts or that it was improper for the court to evaluate the legal sufficiency of his special defenses in the context of ruling on OneWest's motion for summary judgment. The defendant did not attempt to amend the pleading to rectify the pleading defect asserted by OneWest. Rather, ...