Embrace Home Loans, Inc. v. Sarah Richardson et al. (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 185)

On February 10, 2015, the plaintiff, Embrace Home Loans, Inc., moved for summary judgment as to the defendant's revised counterclaims dated June 13, 2014.   Previously, this court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its complaint and it denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on its complaint (No. 185).   The memorandum of decision detailed the court's findings with regard to a July 17, 2009 note and mortgage executed by the defendants, Sarah Richardson and Darren Richardson, in the favor of Advanced Financial Services, Inc. in the original principal amount of $276,149.00.  (No. 184).   The plaintiff's original motion for summary judgment did not request the court to address the issue of summary judgment on the counterclaims.

The defendants' counterclaim includes counts captioned “privity of contract,” “contract fraud,” “tortious interference,” “fraud,” “CUTPA violations,” “color of law,” “fabrication of physical evidence § 53a–155(a)(2),” “fabrication of physical evidence § 53a–155(a)(2) (affidavit),” and “claim and recoupment.”   It is an understatement to state that the gravamen of each count is difficult to discern.

In support of this motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law and an affidavit regarding the material undisputed facts that it claims were necessary to resolve the issues presented by this motion for summary judgment.

In opposition to this motion for summary judgment, the defendant, Sarah Richardson, filed a lengthy memorandum, but without any competent affidavits that would create a genuine issue of material fact.   Plaintiff's opposition papers repeated arguments previously made to the court on the initial motion for summary judgment, which arguments were not persuasive to the court at that time.   They remain unpersuasive.   The defendant has ignored the requirements of the Practice Book opposing this motion for summary judgment.

The court scheduled argument on this motion for April 13, 2015.   At that time, the defendant appeared and asserted for the first time that she filed rescinded the 2009 promissory note and mortgage by filing a notice of rescission on March 19, 2015.   She said this purported notice of rescission was sent pursuant to TILA § 1635(b).  Ms. Richardson asserted that the plaintiff was deemed to have agreed to the recission based upon their failure to respond within 20 days of the March 19, 2015 notice.   The defendant stated that she intended to file a federal lawsuit, presumably to vindicate any rights she might have under TILA.

When the court asked if the defendant for her arguments against this motion for summary judgment, the defendant responded “I won't be pleading, Your Honor, because the only jurisdiction that you have is to dismiss with prejudice;  I'm sorry it's not my fault, they had 20 days to come in and ask you can you please ․ they had 20 days.”

Based upon this record and the responses of the defendant the court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact with regard to this motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in its favor on the counterclaims of the defendants.

Cosgrove, J.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.