CHRISTOPHER P. MCCLANCY ET AL.
BANKOF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.
May 22, 2017
Kenneth A. Votre, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Pierre-Yves Kolakowski, for the appellee (named defendant).
DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Bear, Js.
plaintiffs sought to recover damages from the defendant bank
for, inter alia, breach of contract, in connection with
actions purportedly taken and promises allegedly made while
the plaintiffs were attempting to modify the terms of a note
and mortgage they had executed in favor of the bank. The bank
sent the plaintiffs correspondence stating that their
modification application was under review, but then
subsequently transferred its servicing rights to another
company. The plaintiffs never received a modification of
their loan. The trial court granted the bank's motion for
summary judgment as to all claims against it and rendered
judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this
court. On appeal, they claimed, inter alia, that the trial
court erred in granting summary judgment when genuine issues
of material fact existed with respect to their claims for
breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, reckless
misrepresentation, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.).
1. The plaintiffs' claim that the trial court improperly
granted the bank's motion for summary judgment when
issues of material fact existed with respect to their breach
of contract claims was not reviewable, the plaintiffs having
failed to brief their claim adequately.
2. The plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim that the
trial court erred in failing to determine that their breach
of contract claim fell within a purported promissory estoppel
exception to the statute of frauds; our courts have not
established a promissory estoppel exception to the statute of
frauds, and even if promissory estoppel could bar a statute
of frauds defense, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence
that the bank made a promise to grant a loan modification
once the required documentation was submitted, as the bank
never offered and the plaintiffs never accepted modification
terms, and the bank represented only that it would consider
the plaintiffs' modification application once the
plaintiffs submitted the required documentation.
3. The trial court properly rendered summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation, the
plaintiffs having failed to present evidence that the
bank's representation that it would evaluate their loan
for a possible modification was false when made; the record
showed that the bank took steps to consider the
plaintiffs' modification request while it was still
servicing the loan, and evidence that the bank transferred
the loan before making a decision on the modification,
standing alone, was insufficient to establish that its prior
representation that it would consider the plaintiffs for a
loan modification was false when made.
4. The trial court properly rendered summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' CUTPA claim, which was based on their claim
that the bank acted in bad faith in its communications with
the plaintiffs as they worked to submit a loan modification
request and in transferring their loan during that process;
the plaintiffs failed to present evidence raising a genuine
issue of material fact about whether the bank engaged in
unfair or deceptive practices or violated any identifiable
public policy in association with the plaintiffs' loan
modification application, as this court determined that the
plaintiffs failed to present evidence of a promise made by
the bank to modify their loan or that the bank misrepresented
facts when it promised to review the loan for a possible
modification, the note and mortgage did not obligate the bank
to grant a loan modification, and the mortgage expressly gave
the bank the right to transfer the loan servicing rights.
to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and
for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the court,
Heller, J., granted the named defendant's motion
for summary judgment, from which the plaintiffs appealed to
this court. Affirmed.
litigation arising from an attempt to modify the payment
terms of a promissory note and mortgage, the plaintiffs,
Christopher P. McClancy and Loretta Giannone, appeal from the
summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the
defendant, Bank of America, N.A. On appeal, the plaintiffs
claim that the court erred (1) in rendering summary judgment
when genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to
their breach of contract claim; (2) in failing to determine
that the plaintiffs' contract claim fell within an
exception to the statute of frauds, General Statutes §
52-550; (3) in rendering summary judgment when genuine issues
of material fact remained with respect to their negligent and
reckless misrepresentation claims; and (4) in determining
that no genuine issues of ...