Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Indenture Trustee v. Balt aka John Doe (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

The defendant seeks to dismiss this summary process action by challenging this court's jurisdiction, asserting that actions in violation of a bankruptcy stay render the plaintiff's title to the subject property void, therefore invalidating the present complaint.   The defendant's arguments fail for the following reasons.

First, the defendant's motion to dismiss seeks to challenge, in the context of a summary process action, the court's (Aurigemma, J.) order approving the foreclosure sale entered on March 10, 2009.  (Plaintiff's exhibit 2.) The aforementioned order, from March 10, 2009, is an immediately appealable final judgment entered upon the merits of that foreclosure action.  Byars v. Berg, 116 Conn.App. 843, 848 (2009).   There has not been presented by the defendant any evidence of fraud, accident, mistake, or other wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff to disturb the foreclosure or the recorded deed.  “An outstanding unreversed judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is not subject to collateral attack, in the absence of fraud, accident or mistake.”  Alpert v. Peloquin, 96 Conn. 626, 630 (1921).   Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion to dismiss is an impermissible collateral attack on the judgment of foreclosure, the court's order approving the foreclosure sale, and the recorded committee deed approved and signed by the court on March 10, 2009.   Convalescent Center of Bloomfield, Inc. v. Dept. of Income Maintenance, 208 Conn. 187, 201 (1988).

Second, the defendant through his motion seeks to assert the legal interests of a third party, not his own.   The defendant was not a party to the foreclosure.  (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.) The defendant was not a co-debtor in the aforementioned bankruptcy case which gave rise to a stay.  (Plaintiff's exhibit 4.) Therefore, the defendant lacks standing to challenge the plaintiff's title to the property.  Orsi v. Senatore, 31 Conn.App. 400, 414 (1993);  In re Jessica M., 71 Conn.App. 417, 424 (2002).

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.   The court addresses the merits of the complaint in a subsequent decision.

By the Court

Hon. Vemon D. Oliver

Oliver, Vernon D., J.