July 10, 2014
The court in deciding Bank of Am., N.A. v. Samaha, 2013 Conn. Super. (Conn. Super. Ct., 2013) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
In this action, the plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage executed by Joseph Samaha and Denise Samaha in favor of the Webster Bank.
The defendant raised several special defenses to this foreclosure action. First, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring this litigation. Second, defendant claimed that as a result of the death of one of the makers of the note, Joseph Samaha, that his estate had an indivisible interest in the subject property and was subject to probate court jurisdiction. Third, the defendant challenged the authority of MERS to assign this mortgage to the plaintiff. Fourth, the defendant alleged that she had tendered payment with regard to the note and she alleged accord and satisfaction. Fifth, the defendant challenged whether or not the note in question was a negotiable instrument.
With regard to the first special defense, the court found that the affidavits supplied by the plaintiff established that they had standing for the purposes of doing this litigation.
In regards to the second defense, the court found that there was simply no authority for this assertion. The third special defense challenged the authority of the MERS to assign the note and mortgage. The court found that there were no facts alleged in the special defense and there was no affidavit from the defendant providing any factual foundation for her assertions.
The court found that the fourth defense was a mere assertion, without any evidence to support it, and thereby contest or create a material issue of fact for a motion of summary judgment is insufficient. Finally, the fifth special defense was deemed to be an assertion of a legal conclusion.| Permalink