Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Seminole Realty LLC v. Sekretaev

Appellate Court of Connecticut

December 29, 2015

SEMINOLE REALTY LLC
v.
SERGEY SEKRETAEV

         Argued September 21, 2015

Page 754

          Action 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 court.

          Affirmed.

          SYLLABUS

         The 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.

         Sergey Sekretaev, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

         Christine S. Synodi, with whom was Gordon P. Videll, for the appellee (plaintiff).

         Sheldon, Keller and Schaller, Js.

          OPINION

Page 755

         [162 Conn.App. 168] PER CURIAM.

         The 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.

         The 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 unresolved.

         Following 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.