Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury, Waterbury
(with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and
Walsh): Taylor, Mark H., J.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR
H. TAYLOR, J.
self-represented plaintiff, Karl Paul Vossbrinck, has filed a
motion for judgment in this action to quiet title to property
in which his equity of redemption has been foreclosed. This
motion follows the default of the defendant, Accredited Home
Lenders, for failure to appear and the plaintiff's
withdrawal of the action against the second defendant,
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee,
On Behalf of the Holders of the Accredited Mortgage Loan
Trust 2005-4 Asset Backed Notes (Deutsche Bank). Although
these two parties were identified as two separate defendants,
they are styled as one name in the complaint: "
Accredited Home Lenders [Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, As Indenture Trustee, On Behalf of the Holders of
the Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-4 Asset Backed Notes,
civil action follows the foreclosure of the plain tiff's
title to real property located at 487 Berkshire Road,
Southbury, which he originally mortgaged to Accredited Home
Lenders, Inc., with MERS as its nominee, on or about October
19, 2005. Deutsche Bank is Accredited Home Lenders'
successor in title to the mortgage and note. See
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (Deutsche Bank) v.
Vossbrinck, Superior Court, judicial district of
Waterbury, Docket No. CV-08-5007144-S. The name of the
defendant in the present case is the same as the plaintiff in
the prior action to foreclose Vossbrinck's mortgage.
the foreclosure as background, the plaintiff filed this
related civil action on April 13, 2012, after title had
passed to Deutsche Bank, but before the plaintiff was ejected
from the property, sometime on or about October 2, 2012.
Within two weeks of filing the original complaint in this
action, Deutsche Bank petitioned for removal of the case to
federal court on April 27, 2012. Upon removal to federal
court, the plaintiff amended the complaint to include
numerous additional claims, including unjust enrichment,
perjury, forgery and predatory lending, as well as violations
of state and federal statutes, including the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act, the federal Truth in Lending Act
and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
federal court case was dismissed because, in essence, the
case sought to undo a state judgment of foreclosure in
violation of the, so called, Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, the dismissal was vacated in part and
the original action was remanded to this court. The remand
was filed in the Waterbury judicial district on January 30,
2015. The record of the federal court proceedings is
extensive, numbering 1, 010 pages.
the return of this case to the Superior Court docket, the
plaintiff has filed approximately five amended complaints,
primarily in response to requests to revise and motions to
strike filed by the withdrawn and removed defendant, Deutsche
Bank. The plaintiff filed the operative amended complaint on
January 20, 2016, asserting " fraud, negligent
misrepresentation of facts, materially false statements to
the Plaintiff and lack of standing to foreclose upon said
property, malicious and vindictive action against Plaintiff .
. ." Upon these claims, the plaintiff seeks the
following remedies: " 1. Clear Quiet Title to said
Property unencumbered, with Prejudice. 2. Immediate tender of
the property to the Plaintiff. 3. Compensatory money damages
as deemed appropriate by the court for the harm suffered by
Plaintiff." The limited relief sought in this motion for
judgment, however, is that " judgment for possession of
the premises be entered for the plaintiff via quiet title
after the plaintiff filed the operative amended complaint, he
filed a second motion to default Accredited Home Lenders on
January 25, 2016 for failure to appear, which the court
granted on February 1, 2016. The court denied the
plaintiff's first motion for default because there was no
certification of service to the defendants or supplemental
return filed. Order No. 127.10, dated November 27, 2015.
Although a copy of the second motion for default was
certified to the defendant, the plaintiff did not file a
supplemental return, as the court previously required. The
default for failure to appear may, therefore, have been
improvidently granted on February 1, 2016, as there is no
official record or evidence provided of the last known
address for Accredited Home Lenders. Soon thereafter, on
March 1, 2016, the plaintiff withdrew the action against
court is not convinced that judgment should be granted in
this case, as presented. There is no evidence showing that
the remaining defendant, Accredited Home Lenders, holds title
to the real estate located at 487 Berkshire Road, Southbury.
To the contrary, the official court record shows that
Deutsche Bank was the likely title holder at the time of the
foreclosure, because it was substituted by the court, Cronin,
J., as the plaintiff in the foreclosure action on February
10, 2010, in place of Accredited Home Lenders.
the pleadings and notice of judgment in the foreclosure
identify the plaintiff as " Accredited Home Lenders
[Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee,
On Behalf of the Holders of the Accredited Mortgage Loan
Trust 2005-4 Asset Backed Notes, Substituted
Plaintiff.]" (Emphasis added.) Although Accredited Home
Lenders begins the name of the plaintiff in the foreclosure,
Deutsche Bank is clearly identified as the substituted
plaintiff in the case. Moreover, only Deutsche Bank has
defended this action and, in one of the plaintiff's
recent complaints, filed on August 27, 2015, he identifies
Deutsche Bank as " [t]he sole defendant" in the
case. Complaint dated August 26, 2015, paragraph 2.
court will now address the most problematic aspect of this
case. The plaintiff seeks to quiet title in his name where
there is no apparent legal authority to do so based upon the
facts and law presented. In order to bring an action to quiet
title, one must have a legal claim to the subject real
estate. In the present case, the plaintiff's interest has
been extinguished by operation of a foreclosure in which his
law day of August 23, 2011 has long passed. " Where a
foreclosure decree has become absolute by the passing of the
law days, the outstanding rights of redemption have been cut
off and the title has become unconditional in the [redeeming
encumbrancer] . . . The mortgagor has no remaining title or
interest . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Provident Bank v. Lewitt, 84 Conn.App. 204, 210, 852
A.2d 852, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 924, 859 A.2d 580 (2004).
Furthermore, the plaintiff has been ejected from the property
and has no possessory interest in the land.
remedy in an action to quiet title has been clearly and long
established by General Statutes § 47-31, as interpreted
by our case law. In order to quiet title to real property, a
plaintiff may only prevail on the strength of his or her
title. Here, the plaintiff's title has been extinguished
by operation of law. " The essentials of the complaint
[are] statements of the plaintiff's ownership in the land
described and of its title thereto . . . The action could be
maintained against one in whom the land records disclose any
interest, lien, claim or title conflicting with the
plaintiff's claim, title or interest. The claim for
relief call[s] for a full determination of the rights of the
parties in the land. The plaintiff [i]s required not only to
allege but to prove that its title was so affected by the
claims of the defendants as to justify the litigation.
Finally, the plaintiff [is] required to prevail on the
strength of its own title and not on the weakness of its
adversary's ." (Citations omitted; emphasis
added.) Lake Garda Improvement Ass'n v.
Battistoni, 155 Conn. 287, 293, 231 A.2d 276, 280
the plaintiff seeks the return of title to real property he
once held as a mortgagor, in which his right to redeem has
been foreclosed and from which he has been ejected. There is
no legal authority to support the remedy ...