On June 3, 2014, the Appellate Court released its decision in Wells Fargo Bank v. Tarzia, 150 Conn. App. 660 (2014) in which it affirmed a judgment of strict foreclosure. In doing so, it rejected the defendant’s arguments that (1) the plaintiff had not stated a claim for strict foreclosure because it pled only that it was the holder of the note, not the owner of the debt and (2) that a trial court does not have authority to grant summary judgment as to liability only in foreclosure cases. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s petition for certification on September 17, 2014 (314 Conn. 905 (2014). Building on these decisions, the Appellate Court released its per curiam affirmance of a foreclosure judgment in JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Shack, (AC 35939) today. Shack involved only the first argument rejected in Tarzia and although the “decision” (if you will) does not say it, I know from participating in the argument that Tarzia was dispositive there.
These decisions are significant because they reject, through proper application of recent Appellate and Supreme Court decisions in this area, attempts by delinquent borrowers to create additional impediments to foreclosure in Connecticut.