Borrower did not have a cause of action in Connecticut

No defense for borrower in Connecticut

United States of America Department of Agriculture v. David A. Vieaux
561215

Case Law
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, AT NEW LONDON
2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 754

March 23, 2004, Decided
March 23, 2004, Filed

Facts: The lender filed a foreclosure action against the borrower, who was allegedly in default pursuant to a note he had executed in the lender's favor. The borrower filed a counterclaim and an answer with special defenses. The borrower alleged that he requested that the lender provide him with a payment book, statements, a 1099, or a similar tax document, or a payoff statement; that the lender, however, refused to meet the borrower's requests; that the lender did not credit certain payments that the borrower made to his account; and that the lender refused to accept payments from the borrower. The borrower's counterclaim was essentially a restatement of the facts alleged in his six special defenses.

Issue: Whether borrower has a cause of action?

Ruling: None. After considering the matter, the trial court found that the counterclaim and all six special defenses had to be stricken. It so concluded because it found the counterclaim was redundant to the six special defenses and that the six special defenses were improper because they dealt with matters other than the only issue, which was the making, validity, and enforcement of the note involved.

Lesson Learned: Defenses dealing with the conduct of the lender after execution of the mortgage may not be asserted in a foreclosure action as a defense, as such assertions do not deal with the making, validity, or enforcement of the note.

Written by Kevin Levonas and Jerry L.