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.

CitiMortgage, Inc v. Partch

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 31, 2018

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
MARJORIE PARTCH, Defendant.

          RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND MOTION FOR JOINDER

          Victor A. Bolden, United States District Judge.

         On October 5, 2017, CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Marjorie Partch (“Defendant”), seeking a ruling that would invalidate a Notice of Rescission that Ms. Partch filed in the Norwalk Land Records. Compl., ECF No. 1.

         On October 27, 2017, CitiMortgage filed a motion for summary judgment. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 12. On January 19, 2018, Ms. Partch filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 32. And on March 12, 2018, Ms. Parch filed a motion for joinder. ECF No. 52. On August 30, 2018, the Court held a hearing. ECF No. 66. Although the calendar entry on the Court's docket had indicated that the Court would hear arguments on the motion to dismiss, the Court also considered arguments, through the parties' submissions to the record and, as a supplement, through the parties' submissions at oral argument, on the motion for summary judgment and the motion for joinder.

         For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Because the Court has granted CitiMortgage's motion for summary judgment, the motion to dismiss and the motion for joinder are found as moot. Ms. Partch's claim of rescission of a certain loan made by CitiMortgage is untimely and invalid under the Truth In Lending Act. As a result, any purported rescission on the land records of the city of Norwalk, Connecticut (‘Land Records') regarding this loan is void and of no force and effect. To the extent necessary to address any confusion caused by the filing of this now null and void rescission, CitiMortgage may place the ensuing judgment on the Land Records.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations[1]

         The underlying facts here involve a Connecticut Superior Court action, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Partch, No. FST-CV13-6017689-S (“State Court Action”), to foreclose on real property located at 20 Devil's Garden Road, South Norwalk, Connecticut. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 1; see also Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1. That case determined that Dorothy Partch, Majorie Partch's mother, executed a loan on December 2, 2005, in the principal amount of $135, 000. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 2. On that same date, Dorothy Partch executed and delivered a mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for 1st Atlantic Federal Mortgage Corporation. Id. ¶ 3. The mortgage was dated December 2, 2005, and recorded December 7, 2005, in the Norwalk Land Records. Id.

         The mortgage was assigned to Marjorie Partch on December 24, 2012, and the assignment was recorded on January 4, 2013. Id. ¶ 4.

         On May 11, 2015, a judgment of foreclosure by sale was entered in the State Court Action. Id. ¶ 5. On June 18, 2016, a foreclosure sale of the property was conducted. Id. On April 3, 2017, the Superior Court confirmed the sale.[2]

         On September 29, 2017, Marjorie Partch recorded a Notice of Rescission in the Land Records, which purported “to rescind the mortgage transaction that resulted in execution of the Note and Mortgage ‘as per the U.S. Supreme Court's clarification in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.'” Id. ¶ 6 (quoting Notice, Compl. Ex. B).[3]

         B. Procedural History

         On October 5, 2017, CitiMortgage filed a Complaint in this Court, seeking “a ruling declaring that: (a) Defendant's claimed rescission of a certain loan made by [CitiMortgage] is untimely and invalid under [the Truth In Lending Act]; (b) the recordation of that purported rescission in the land records of the city of Norwalk, Connecticut (‘Land records') is void and of no force and effect; and (c) CMI may record a copy of this Court's judgment establishing the foregoing in the Land Records.” Compl. ¶ 7.

         On October 27, 2017, CitiMortgage filed a motion for summary judgment. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 12. Ms. Partch filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion on January 19, 2018, and on that same day, also filed a motion to dismiss. Memo. in Opp. to Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 31; Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 32.

         The Court granted several motions for extension of time to allow Ms. Partch to respond to the motion for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 22, 26. On December 5, 2017, the Court noted that “[o]rdinarily, under the Local Rules, a party is given twenty-one days to respond to a motion for summary judgment. The Court has now permitted Ms. Partch 84 days to respond. Accordingly, no further extensions of time will be granted. If Ms. Partch fails to file a response by 1/18/2018, the Court may decide the motion without a response from her.” ECF No. 26 (modified on 12/5/2017 to correct response date to 1/18/18). Ms. Partch filed her opposition one day late, on January 19, 2018. Nevertheless, the Court ...


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.