GMAC v. Roberto Fernandez (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS (# 125)

The defendant in the above entitled matter has filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's foreclosure complaint.   He contends that the plaintiff cannot maintain the foreclosure complaint based upon his contention that the plaintiff's agent signed documents as a robosigner.   He contends that the plaintiff has no standing to continue its collection on his debt and/or foreclose the mortgage securing the debt.

Section 10–31 of the Connecticut Practice Book entitled Grounds or Motion to Dismiss states, in part, as follows:  “(a) The motion to dismiss shall be used to assert (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;  (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person;  (3) improper venue;  (4) sufficiency of process;  and (5) insufficiency of service of process ․” The plaintiff contends that the court has subject matter over the controversy in question.   It further claims that the defendant's claim of robosigning is not an attack on the court's subject matter jurisdiction

This court concurs with the plaintiff's position.   The defendant's claim as argued by the plaintiff's counsel at the short calendar hearing on March 21, 2011, may be the proper subject of a special defense but not a motion to dismiss.   This court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction of the present controversy.

Order

Defendant's motion to dismiss # 125 is hereby denied.

Devin, J.

Devine, James J., J.