Judd Square Owners Association, Inc. v. Glen Zaczkowski et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this foreclosure case a judgment of foreclosure by sale was entered on August 30, 2010.   Subsequently, on November 27, 2010, the property was sold and, on January 4, 2011, the sale was approved by the court.   On March 25, 2011, one of the named defendants, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), filed a motion to open the judgment claiming that, because it was not properly served pursuant to General Statutes § 33–929(b), this court never acquired jurisdiction over MERS. Therefore, MERS argues that the judgment was invalid.

In particular, MERS argues that the officer's return of service shows that the officer attempted service on MERS by certified mail as follows:  “Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., as nominee for Guaranty Residential Lending Inc., P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501–2026.”   MERS contends that, in reality, its principal place of business was in Reston, Virginia, and claims that this information was readily available by accessing its website and from the records of the Secretaries of State of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio.

The plaintiff argues that personal jurisdiction was acquired over MERS pursuant to General Statutes § 52–57(c), because it served an officer of MERS at its place of business.   The plaintiff further argues that § 33–929(b) is inapplicable because MERS has not applied for a certificate of authority to transact business in the state of Connecticut pursuant to General Statutes § 33–922.

MERS' motion to open the judgment is denied because it is clear that the service was sufficient to gain personal jurisdiction over it.   This court notes the case of Judd Square Owners Association, Inc. v. Zaczkowski, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. CV 106001729, which is a foreclosure case between the very same parties involving a second condominium unit.¹  The file further reveals that the officer's return is identical to the officer's return in the present case and that MERS was served at the same place of business in Flint, Michigan.   Moreover, MERS filed an appearance in both cases so, clearly and undisputedly, it received notice by service at the place of business in Flint, Michigan.   MERS cannot now claim differently.

The motion to open is denied.

BY THE COURT

Jack W. Fischer, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. This court “has the power to take judicial notice of court files of other actions between the same parties.”  In re Mark C., 28 Conn.App. 247, 253, 610 A.2d 181, cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922, 614 A.2d 823 (1992)..  FN1. This court “has the power to take judicial notice of court files of other actions between the same parties.”  In re Mark C., 28 Conn.App. 247, 253, 610 A.2d 181, cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922, 614 A.2d 823 (1992).

Fischer, Jack W., J.