September 21, 2015
to foreclose a mortgage on certain of the defendant's
real property, and for other relief, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of Windham, where the
defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the court,
Boland, J., denied the defendant's motion to dismiss;
subsequently, the court rendered judgment of strict
foreclosure and judgment in part for the defendant on the
counterclaim, from which the defendant appealed to this
plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage on a condominium it
built and sold to the defendant. The defendant challenged,
inter alia, the plaintiff's standing to bring the action.
The trial court rendered judgment of strict foreclosure and
found in favor of the defendant on one count of his
counterclaim. Thereafter, the defendant appealed to this
court, challenging the plaintiff's standing to bring the
action and the trial court's rejection of his special
defenses and two counts of his counterclaim. Held
that the trial court properly rendered judgment of strict
foreclosure for the plaintiff and did not err in rejecting
the defendant's jurisdictional challenges; accordingly,
because the issues raised by the defendant were resolved
properly in the trial court's well reasoned memorandum of
decision, this court adopted that court's memorandum of
decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts, issues
and applicable law.
Sekretaev, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
S. Synodi, with whom was Gordon P. Videll, for the appellee
Keller and Schaller, Js.
Conn.App. 168] PER CURIAM.
self-represented defendant, Sergey Sekretaev, appeals from
the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the
plaintiff, Seminole Realty, LLC. On appeal, the defendant
challenges the trial court's determination that the
plaintiff had standing to bring this action, notwithstanding
his arguments to the contrary, and its rejection of his
special defenses and two counts of his three count
counterclaim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
plaintiff filed its complaint seeking foreclosure on a
residential condominium unit that it built and sold to the
defendant in exchange for a note secured by a mortgage. The
plaintiff alleged that it was the owner and holder of the
note and mortgage. In responding to the plaintiff's
complaint, the defendant filed an answer, in which he denied
all of the plaintiff's essential allegations against him,
in addition to asserting twelve special defenses and a three
count counterclaim. Over the protracted history of this case,
which spanned more than four years, the defendant also
repeatedly challenged the plaintiff's standing to bring
this action by filing serial motions to dismiss. At the time
of trial, two of those jurisdictional challenges remained
a trial to the court, at which both parties introduced
several exhibits into evidence, the court issued a memorandum
of decision in which it concluded: (1) on the question of the
plaintiff's standing, and thus of its own subject matter
jurisdiction over the action, that it had such jurisdiction
based upon the plaintiff's standing to bring it in its
capacity as the owner [162 Conn.App. 169] and holder of the
note and mortgage on which it sought to foreclose; and (2) on
the merits of the action, that the plaintiff had "
proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [the]
defendant is liable to it upon the promissory note secured by
the mortgage, and that the defendant's special defenses .
. . are legally inapplicable or [not] factually supported by
any material evidence. The first and third counts of his
counterclaim are inapplicable. [The] defendant has proven in
part the allegations of the second count ...