The Community's Bank v. Estate of Moales et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The present action involves the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property in Bridgeport, Connecticut.   The defendants move to dismiss the plaintiff's third amended complaint for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the claim that the plaintiff has failed to allege that it is the holder or owner of the promissory note secured by the mortgage.

The defendants claim that the allegations of the plaintiff's third amended complaint, on their face, fail to make the necessary allegation in a foreclosure action that the plaintiff is the holder or owner of the note.   The plaintiff concedes that it has not expressly alleged that it is the holder or owner of the note.   In opposing the motion, however, the plaintiff claims that the court may reasonably infer from the allegations of the complaint that it is the holder of the note.   In particular, the plaintiff asserts that the allegation that “the [p]laintiff is entitled to collect from the [d]efendants all its costs, including reasonable attorneys fees, in pursuing its remedies under the [n]ote and [m]ortgage, as modified by the Loan Modification and Reaffirmation Agreement,” read in conjunction with the other allegations, leads to the reasonable inference that it is the note holder.

Because the defendants' claim implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction, “the trial court [is] obligated to construe that complaint in the manner most favorable to [the plaintiff].”  Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Peabody, N.E., Inc., 239 Conn. 93, 99 (1996).[T]he interpretation of pleadings is always a question of law for the court.  98 Lords Highway, LLC v. One Hundred Lords Highway, LLC, 138 Conn.App. 776, 796, 54 A.3d 232 (2012).  “Whenever [the] language [of the pleadings] fails to define clearly the issues in dispute, the court will put upon it such reasonable construction as will give effect to the pleadings in conformity with the general theory which it was intended to follow, and do substantial justice between the parties.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Petitte v. DSL.net, Inc., 102 Conn.App. 363, 374–75, 925 A.2d 457 (2007).

The present action is indisputably one to foreclose a mortgage given as security for a promissory note.   The issue is whether, in construing the complaint, it may be reasonably inferred from the allegations that the plaintiff is the holder of the note.   The court answers the issue in the affirmative.

The plaintiff alleges in its complaint elements of an action to foreclosure of a mortgage.   Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant decedent, Kenneth H. Moales, entered into a loan agreement with the plaintiff, which was subsequently modified;  granted to the plaintiff a mortgage on real property;  and defaulted on the note.   A copy of the note is attached to the complaint.   Significantly, the plaintiff alleges that it “is entitled to collect from the [d]efendants all its costs, including reasonable attorneys fees, in pursuing its remedies under the [n]ote and [m]ortgage, as modified by the Loan Modification and Reaffirmation Agreement.”

In view of the foregoing, the court construes the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff as alleging that the plaintiff is the holder of the note.   The plaintiff alleges that it is the original payee and mortgagee, and has provided a copy of the note in support of that claim.   Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the note was modified and reaffirmed by the defendant decedent.   Moreover, the plaintiff alleges that it is “entitled to collect from the [d]efendants” fees and costs “in pursuing its remedies under the [n]ote and [m]ortgage.  (Emphasis added.)   Although the plaintiff has not expressly set forth that it holds the note, a fair and reasonable reading of the allegations of the operative complaint is that the plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage, and has been since the original loan documents were signed.   To construe the pleadings otherwise under the circumstances of this case “would inappropriately elevate form over substance.”  Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC., 308 Conn. 312, 325 (2013).

The defendants' motion to reargue (151.00) is granted.   The court's order (141.50) concerning the defendants' motion to dismiss (141.00) is vacated.   For the reasons hereinafter discussed, the defendants' motion to dismiss (141.00) the plaintiff's third amended complaint for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

TYMA, J.

Tyma, Theodore R., J.