Page 32 - CLT120919

32 ¦ DECEMBER 9, 2019 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS •
REAL ESTATE

CIVIL PROCEDURE Court Finds Extensive Delays

State Courts Lack Subject Matter From Borrower In Modification Of
Jurisdiction To Extend Automatic Mortgage May Survive Motion to
Stay Provisions In Foreclosure Strike CUTPA Claim

Matters to Collect Fees And CASE: Cenatiempo v. Bank of America, N.A.
Expenses COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20150
COURT OPINION BY: McDonald
CASE: U.S. Bank N.A. v. Crawford DATE: November 26, 2019 • PAGES: 33
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 19903 Plaintiffs secured a mortgage note on property lo-
COURT OPINION BY: Robinson cated in Weston, however due to financial hardship
DATE: November 26, 2019 • PAGES: 20 they defaulted on the mortgage in 2009. Over the
next six years, plaintiffs attempted to get a modifica-
Defendant executed a promissory note on tion to the mortgage through the Home Affordable
property in Hartford. Once he defaulted, the Modification Program, with the defendant refusing
bank secured a foreclosure judgment, and the to timely review their applications. During this time,
trial court rendered a judgment of foreclosure defendants remained unresponsive to plaintiff’s at-
by sale, appointing the plaintiff as the com- tempts to obtain a loan modification through delay,
mittee for the sale. The property was sold to inconsistent information, opaque denials, and gen-
the bank, with the plaintiff incurring expenses eral evasiveness and nonresponsiveness. Eventually,
and legal fees. However, before the sale was plaintiffs obtained a modified loan that became a
completed, the defendant filed for chapter 13 new permanent mortgage. However, the principal
bankruptcy, which carries an automatic stay balance was substantially increased to reflect appli-
provision for foreclosure actions, and the sale
could not be completed. The plaintiff then cation fees, increased interest rates, default fees, and
filed a motion to recover the expenses and attorneys’ fees over the six years. Plaintiffs brought
fees from the bank, however the trial court claims for violations of the Connecticut Unfair
was bound by the Shivers ruling to deny the Trade Practices Act and for negligence, arguing the
motion. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the excessive delays resulted in a higher principal bal-
Supreme Court should overrule Shivers be- ance. Plaintiffs argued defendant utilized improper
cause the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction business conduct to intentionally prevent home-
to extend an automatic stay. The court agreed owners from receiving HAMP modifications, and
and found the state court lacked jurisdiction that they had a duty of care arising out of the fed-
to extend automatic stay provisions to mo- eral Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the
tions by committees for sale to recover fees Connecticut foreclosure mediation statutes. The de-
and expenses from nondebtor plaintiffs. fendants moved to strike the complaint, which the

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune