The named defendant’s petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 202 Conn. App. 540, 246 A.3d 4 (AC 40959), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the named defendant’s challenge to the plaintiff’s standing to prosecute this action, and, thus, the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, represented an improper collateral attack on one or more of the earlier judgments rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff? [ANSWER WAS NO, THE LOWER APPELALTE COURT WAS WRONG. THE EFFECT IS BINDING ON ALL CONNECTICIUT COURTS AND PERSUASIVE ON ALL OTHER COURTS]
“2. If the answer to the first certified question is ‘no,’ should the judgment of the Appellate Court be affirmed on the alternative ground that the trial court properly had denied the named defendant’s motion to open, in which the named defendant claimed that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.” [ANSWER WAS NO, APPELLATE COURT DID NOT CORRECTLY CONCLUDE THAT THE HOMEOWNER’S ATTEMPT TO REOPEN THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED]
Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope, 339 Conn. 901 (Conn. 2021)So, as you can see, the tide is turning, not only in the state of Connecticut, but across the country. Judges are beginning to consider an even inquire as to the reason for so many anomalies in the switching of names of servicers, claimants and attorneys.
This case stands for the proposition that standing is standing. I did the court has jurisdiction, or it does not. If the court has no jurisdiction, anything it does, with the case is void ab initio. No court can arrogate jurisdiction onto itself. This is only done by statute. No interpretation of statute can create jurisdiction.
This case stands in direct contradiction to thousands of cases across the country.
In one form or another, courts have been bending over backward to find for the named claimant, as represented by counsel of record, regardless of the absence of any facts or evidence that corroborate the position taken when the lawyer initiates a foreclosure action.
This has resulted in millions of windfalls, each worth an average of $300,000. People think that the Madoff scandal was the largest economic crime in history. Viewed from the perspective of false claims of securitization (sale of an unpaid loan account), the Madoff scandal, even in gross amount, was worth less than 1% of the gross amount of what was taken in by Wall Street banks.
This was caused by a familiar pattern of conduct that forms the essential reason for having appellate courts and then a supreme court. Trial judges, under pressure to clear the docket or because of their own bias, frequently make a decision and then listen to the evidence and arguments in search of a rationale to support the decision that was reached before the case even began.
It is disappointing to see that the only case that seems to have cited this case, as the controlling authority was decided against the homeowner because of this specific fact pattern that is recited in the case. But I think the question is deeper than that. I think the homeowner asked the wrong question. Pennymac Corp. v. Tarzia, AC 44378 (Conn. App. Ct. Sep. 13, 2022)
==============
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!
CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield usually within 24 hours. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.
Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).
Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.
Filed under: jurisdiction, legal standing |
Oh John Reed — right again! What will happen in this CT remanded case? What will they come up with in the hearing? They hope you die. They have money and power to wait until you do.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. Tope, Conn: Supreme Court Dec 20, 2022
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1301738146980338675&q=Bank+of+New+York+Mellon+v.+Tope&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39
. . .
“Because the question of the plaintiff’s standing to bring the foreclosure action in the present case turns on questions of fact, namely, whether the plaintiff has been vested with the right to enforce the note, the trial court should not have denied the motion to open but should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the foreclosure action in the present case. Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court cannot be upheld on this alternative ground.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Bout time…
LOOK FOLKS… The Bank’s, the Lender’s & the Wall Streeter’s aren’t stupid! They know that if they can just keep the rulings down to a minimum… then many of those people that had their homes completely just stolen from them… will be dead… and therefore there’s nobody to pay fines and restitution too. And our Judiciary isn’t stupd either! They need to put off “truthful rulings” for those same reasons but also for as long as their judges are holding their positions so they can escape with as much money as posible. In other words… while our Judiciary is purposely dragging their butts… they are doing so strategically and with malice because they know… time is on their side.