In HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Navin, the defendant-borrower executed a note on October 5, 2005 to American Brokers Conduit and gave a mortgage to MERS on his principal residence. On October 5, 2005, HSBC was assigned the mortgage, which was then recorded on June 14, 2007. After the borrower failed to make his mortgage payments, plaintiff HSBC accelerated the note and began a foreclosure action on November 6, 2006. However, that action was withdrawn and the present action was commenced on June 13, 2007.

As part of the foreclosure proceedings, and in response to the borrower’s answer, HSBC filed a motion for summary judgment. Attached as an exhibit to HSBC’s motion was an affidavit, which stated that the note was endorsed in blank and delivered to HSBC before the case commenced. The borrower objected to the motion, claiming HSBC lacked standing; he submitted his own affidavit, stating HSBC was not in possession of the note when it served the November 6, 2006 complaint. The borrower offered no other evidence.

The trial court granted HSBC’s motion for summary judgment and issued a judgment of foreclosure. The borrower appealed the judgment, claiming: (1) HSBC lacked standing, as it did not own the note and mortgage at the commencement of the action; (2) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether HSBC possessed the assignment of the note and mortgage at the commencement of its action; and (3) HSBC was not the holder of the note and mortgage at the time it commenced its action.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that HSBC did have standing when it commenced the present action and no genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court stated that pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 49-17, HSBC, as holder of the note, could foreclose on the mortgage even though the mortgage had yet to be assigned. The court further stated that HSBC’s sworn affidavit was sufficient to prove standing because the only counter-evidence offered by borrower came in the form of an affidavit containing bald assertions, without any indication of personal knowledge, that the plaintiff was not the holder of the note at the commencement of the withdrawn foreclosure action.

This case reaffirms a plaintiff’s ability to evidence standing via a sworn affidavit, while simultaneously requiring a defendant to do more than merely raise the issue of standing. Additionally, the case appears to be clarifying the appellate court’s decision in Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, which some trial courts interpret as requiring an evidentiary hearing whenever the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, no matter in what form it is raised, or how devoid of evidence the claim may be.