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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Kydes

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

July 17, 2018

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
v.
ANDREW D. KYDES

          Argued May 23, 2018

         Procedural History

         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 Stamford-Norwalk, where Christiana Trust was substituted as the plaintiff; thereafter, the court, Heller, J., granted the substitute plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability; subsequently, the court, A. William Mottolese, judge trial referee, granted the substitute plaintiff's motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure and rendered judgment thereon, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

          Hugh D. Hughes, for the appellant (defendant).

          Jeffrey M. Knickerbocker, for the appellee (substitute plaintiff).

          Alvord, Sheldon and Bear, Js.

          OPINION

          SHELDON, J.

         The defendant, Andrew D. Kydes, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB Not in Its Individual Capacity but as Trustee of ARLP Trust 5 (Christiana Trust).[1] On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred: (1) in relying upon a ‘‘procedural default'' to find that the named plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), had standing to bring the instant action, and thus that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action; and (2) in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his claim that Bank of America lacked standing to bring this action. We disagree, and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         The following procedural history is relevant to the defendant's claims on appeal. In 2012, Bank of America commenced this action against the defendant. On March 13, 2014, the defendant filed an answer and several special defenses, including the special defense alleging that Bank of America ‘‘has made false and fictitious claims without any supporting admissible evidence, '' and thus that it lacked standing to bring this action.

         On March 13, 2015, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action on the ground, inter alia, that Bank of America lacked standing to bring it. On April 29, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss because the defendant failed to appear on the date the motion was scheduled for argument.[2]

         On May 14, 2015, Bank of America served the defendant with requests for admission pursuant to Practice Book § 13-22, in which it asked the defendant to admit, inter alia, that Bank of America was the holder of the underlying promissory note when this action was commenced and that the defendant had defaulted on his obligation to make payments to it under the note. On June 4, 2015, the defendant, without answering or objecting to the requests for admission, filed a motion for a protective order, pursuant to Practice Book § 13-5, in which he asserted that the plaintiff's requests for admission, in their entirety, were ‘‘fraudulent'' and ‘‘made in bad faith . . . as a perpetuation of systematic unfair and deceptive practices.'' He further asserted that the ‘‘requests for admission and its content is outside of the scope of allowable discovery, and seeks an admission of facts which are known by [the] plaintiff to be false.'' On June 5, 2015, Bank of America filed an objection to the defendant's motion for a protective order.

         On June 19, 2015, the defendant filed a corrected motion for a protective order concerning several additional discovery requests that Bank of America had directed to him. On July 17, 2015, the court sustained Bank of America's objection to the defendant's original motion for a protective order and summarily denied his corrected motion for a protective order.

         On July 29, 2015, Bank of America filed a ‘‘Notice of Intent to Rely on [the] Requests to Admit, '' in which it asserted that the defendant's failure to respond to its requests for admission had resulted in his admission of all matters as to which admissions had been requested pursuant to Practice Book § 13-23 (a).[3] On July 31, 2015, more than six weeks after the thirty day period within which the defendant was required to answer or object to the requests for admission pursuant to Practice Book § 13-23 (a) had expired, the defendant finally responded to such requests for admission, denying them all without limitation or qualification.

         On July 31, 2015, Bank of America filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability only. Bank of America reiterated, in support of that motion, that by failing to answer or object to its requests for admission in the time required by law, the defendant had admitted all matters as to which admissions had been requested, which included all facts necessary to establish both its standing to bring this action and its right to prevail against the defendant. The defendant filed an objection to Bank of America's motion for summary judgment, claiming, inter alia, that the underlying note was fraudulent, that Bank of America had not been the holder of the note prior to the ...


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.