WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Thomas J. FERRARO et al.
October 8, 2019
Court, Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford, John W. Moran,
Judge Trial Referee.
William J. Whewell, Stratford, with whom, on the brief, was
Dorian D. Arbelaez, for the appellants (named defendant et
T. Staskiewicz, Hartford, for the appellee (substitute
Devlin and Sheldon, Js.
Conn.App. 468] The defendants Thomas J. Ferraro and Danielle
Ferraro appeal from the judgment of strict
foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the
substitute plaintiff, Wilmington Trust, National Association,
as trustee for MFRA Trust 2015-2. The defendants claim that
the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment as to
liability in favor of the plaintiff after it held an
evidentiary hearing, and weighed and relied on the evidence
adduced at that hearing, in resolving an issue of material
fact in favor of the plaintiff. We reverse the judgment of
the trial court.
1, 2013, the original plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(Wells Fargo), filed this foreclosure action alleging that
the defendants had executed a promissory [194 Conn.App. 469]
note and mortgage on certain property in its favor and that
the defendants had defaulted on the note. The plaintiff
thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment as to
liability only on the foreclosure complaint against the
defendants, arguing that there was no genuine issue as to any
material fact and, therefore, that it was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. In response, the defendants
filed an objection on the ground that a genuine issue of
material fact existed as to whether Wells Fargo had complied
with the notice provisions of the Emergency Mortgage
Program (EMAP), General Statutes § 8-265cc et
12, 2018, the court held an evidentiary hearing "limited
to a singular issue by virtue of the defendants objection to
[the] plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dated May 14,
2018, raising an objection based on a— whether it was
proper service of the EMAP notice." At that hearing, the
plaintiff presented the live testimony of two witnesses and
introduced five exhibits [194 Conn.App. 470] into evidence in
support of its contention that it had complied with the
notice provisions of EMAP. Both of the defendants testified
that they did not receive an EMAP notice.
conclusion of the hearing, the court held in relevant part:
"Based on the credible testimony and the evidence, the
court finds that there has been full compliance with [General
Statutes § ] 8-265ee." On that basis, the court
determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact
and thus granted summary judgment as to liability only in
favor of the plaintiff. The court thereafter granted the
plaintiffs motion for judgment of strict foreclosure, from
which the defendants now appeal.
appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly
permitted, considered and relied on live testimony from
witnesses at an evidentiary hearing on the ...