Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. Brendan R. Putman et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff moves to strike the sole special defense pleaded by the defendant, Brendan Putman, in this foreclosure action.   The special defense alleges that the mortgage deed was assigned to the plaintiff two days before the date appearing on the purported mortgage deed.   The defendant argues that this discrepancy impugns the efficacy of that assignment.   The plaintiff contends that the note, which it legally holds, remains unaffected by any cloud over the mortgage deed, and the discrepancy is, therefore, of no consequence.   The court agrees with the plaintiff.

General Statutes § 49–17 vests in the entity “entitled to receive the money” under a promissory note, secured by a mortgage, standing to foreclose that mortgage even though “legal title to the mortgaged premises has never been conveyed.”   This statute codifies the common-law principle that the right to foreclose follows the note rather than the mortgage deed.  Bankers Trust Company of California v. Vaneck, 95 Conn.App. 390, 391 (2006).

Because no assignment of the mortgage is required in order for the plaintiff to enforce the note through foreclosure, any issue concerning the validity of that assignment is immaterial and fails to provide the basis for a special defense to foreclosure.   The motion to strike is, therefore, granted.

Sferrazza, S.J.

Sferrazza, Samuel J., S.J.