Background
LPP Mortgage Ltd. commenced this commercial foreclosure action in 2006. The action concerned a mortgage on property owned by the city of Hartford and leased by Underwood Towers Limited Partnership. LPP Mortgage, Inc. later was substituted as plaintiff.
The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure for the plaintiff. In an earlier appeal, Hartford argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose, but the Appellate Court affirmed and remanded for new law days. On remand, Hartford sought a determination of priorities that proposed law days reflecting its renewed contention that the plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose as to Note B. The trial court denied that motion and again rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. Res judicata barred Hartford from relitigating the plaintiff’s standing to foreclose.
Hartford argued that Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope changed the governing standing law after the Appellate Court’s earlier decision. Relying on its decision issued the same day in the companion case, the Supreme Court held that Tope had not changed the relevant law. Because res judicata resolved the issue, the court did not decide whether the law-of-the-case doctrine independently barred the renewed challenge.
Key Takeaways
- A party may not relitigate a foreclosure plaintiff’s standing after that issue has been resolved, absent a genuine intervening change in governing law.
- Tope did not alter the standing law applicable to this foreclosure action.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the strict foreclosure judgment and remanded for further proceedings according to law.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces finality in prolonged foreclosure litigation. A later decision does not permit a party to reopen an already resolved standing issue unless it actually changes the controlling law.