Wachovia Mortgage, FSB v. Toczek

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB v. PAWEL TOCZEK ET AL. (AC 41851) Elgo, Devlin and Harper, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff M Co. sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendants A and T following their default on a promissory note secured by the mortgage. Thereafter, W Co., which had been substi- tuted as the plaintiff in the action following its acquisition of M Co., filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability. In support of its motion, W Co. attached an affidavit from H, the vice president of loan documentation for M Co., who attested concerning the debt owed under the note and that W Co. was the current holder of the note. H included with his affidavit a copy of both the note and the mortgage, which he referenced therein. No objection to the motion was filed. The trial court granted W Co.’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, which it treated as unopposed, concluding that H’s affidavit in conjunction with the note and mortgage constituted a prima facie case for a judgment of strict foreclosure and that W Co. had met its burden of showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thereafter, the trial court granted W Co.’s motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure and rendered judgment thereon. The trial court subsequently denied A’s motion to reargue, and A appealed to this court. Held: 1. A could not prevail on her claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because W Co. did not have standing because it was not the holder of the subject note, which was premised on her claim that the note was a nonnegotiable instrument pursuant to the relevant statute (§ 42a-3-104 (a)) because it was not for a fixed amount of money and was governed by federal law; because A’s claim challenged the validity …Original document