December 1, 2015
to foreclose a mortgage on certain of the named
defendant's real property, and for other relief, brought
to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield,
where the defendant City Streets, Inc., et al. was defaulted
for failure to appear; thereafter, the matter was tried to
the court, Hon. George N. Thim, judge trial referee; judgment
of strict foreclosure, from which the named defendant
appealed to this court.
plaintiff sought to foreclose mortgages on certain real
property of the defendant S Co. The matter was tried to the
court, and R, the chief operating officer of the
plaintiff's mortgage servicing company, testified that he
was personally familiar with the books and records of the
plaintiff and maintained them in the ordinary course of his
business. R testified, inter alia, that the plaintiff
purchased the note approximately six months prior to the
commencement of this action. In its posttrial brief, S Co.
argued for the first time that the plaintiff failed to prove
that R was the plaintiff's agent, and therefore the trial
court should not accept his testimony. The trial court
rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the
plaintiff, and S Co. appealed.
trial court's finding that the plaintiff was the owner
and holder of the note and mortgage deeds in question was not
clearly erroneous; the documentary and testimonial evidence
at trial established that the plaintiff was in possession of
the original note, which included a series of allonges under
which ownership of the note was transferred by special
endorsement to various entities terminating in the assignment
to the plaintiff, and was thus the holder of the note and
entitled to enforce it, and as the holder of a note the
plaintiff was presumed to be the rightful owner of the
underlying debt unless S Co. rebutted that presumption, which
it failed to do.
court declined to review S Co.'s unpreserved evidentiary
claim that the trial court improperly accepted R's
testimony, as S Co. did not object to R's testimony
during trial, question R's authority to testify during
cross-examination, or proffer any evidence at trial that
refuted R's testimony in any respect.
J. Klein, with whom, on the brief, were John R. Bryk and
Barry C. Knott, for the appellant (named defendant).
P. Barsom, with whom, on the brief, was Alena C. Gfeller, for
the appellee (plaintiff).
Alvord and Prescott, Js.
Conn.App. 751] GRUENDEL, J.
defendant Success, Inc., appeals from the judgment of strict
foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the
plaintiff, AS Peleus, LLC. The defendant claims that the
court (1) erroneously found that the plaintiff was the owner
and holder of the promissory note and mortgage deeds in
question and (2) improperly accepted the testimony of a
representative of the plaintiff's mortgage servicing
company. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Conn.App. 752] This appeal concerns real property owned by
the defendant and known as 520 Success Avenue
(property). That property is partially situated in
Stratford and partially situated in Bridgeport. On June 26,
2007, the defendant executed a promissory note (note) in
favor of Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (Greenpoint), in
the principal amount of $525,000. The note was secured by two
identical mortgage deeds on the property that encumbered the