Background
On July 31, 2006, the defendant executed a promissory note for $329,282.42 payable to American General Financial Services, secured by a mortgage on property at 66 Woodfield Road in Woodbridge. The mortgage was subsequently assigned to the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, Trustee for CIM Trust 2018-R6 Mortgage-Backed Notes. Following the defendant’s default, a notice of default containing required Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP) information was mailed to the defendant on April 21, 2022 via both first-class and certified mail; the certified mail was never delivered to the defendant.
The plaintiff commenced foreclosure on October 19, 2022. The defendant filed an answer denying the authenticity of signatures on the note. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on November 1, 2024, finding the plaintiff was the owner of the note as a matter of law. The defendant then moved for summary judgment arguing the EMAP notice requirement had not been satisfied. The trial court denied that motion on January 15, 2025 and entered judgment of foreclosure by sale on March 10, 2025, assessing the property value at $608,000 and the debt at $377,856.86. The defendant appealed.
The Court’s Holding
Regarding the EMAP notice requirement: Connecticut General Statutes § 8-265dd(b) prohibits entry of a foreclosure judgment unless the mortgagee provides notice “in accordance with section 8-265ee.” Section 8-265ee(a) requires notice be sent by registered or certified mail to the mortgagor’s address. The court held that these statutes require only that the mortgagee mail the notice, not that the mortgagor actually receive it. Relying on precedent from Aurora Loan Services v. Condron and Wells Fargo v. Melahn, the court concluded that the plain language of § 8-265ee(a) “does not require proof of actual delivery” and that “a plaintiff need only demonstrate that the EMAP notice was mailed as directed.” Since the undisputed facts showed the plaintiff mailed the EMAP notice by certified mail, the notice requirement was satisfied regardless of non-delivery.
Regarding summary judgment on ownership: The plaintiff established a prima facie case of ownership through (1) an affidavit averring that the plaintiff was entitled to collect the debt as of August 12, 2022, and (2) a copy of the note endorsed in blank. Under Connecticut law, a holder of a note endorsed in blank is presumed to be the owner of the debt. Once the plaintiff met its initial burden, the burden shifted to the defendant to produce evidence of a genuine factual dispute. The defendant submitted no evidence—only arguing that the plaintiff had not met its burden. The court held this insufficient and affirmed the grant of summary judgment on liability.
Key Takeaways
- EMAP notice under Connecticut’s mortgage foreclosure statutes requires mailing by registered or certified mail, not proof of actual delivery to the mortgagor
- A mortgagor’s non-receipt of a properly mailed EMAP notice does not defeat the mortgagee’s statutory compliance
- A mortgagee establishes prima facie ownership for foreclosure through an affidavit of entitlement combined with a note endorsed in blank
- Once the moving party meets its summary judgment burden, the non-moving party must produce actual evidence of a factual dispute; mere argument or denial is insufficient
Why It Matters
Connecticut’s EMAP requirement was designed to give homeowners notice of potential mortgage assistance before foreclosure proceeds. This decision interprets that protection in light of practical realities of mail delivery. By requiring only mailing—not proof of receipt—the court creates a clear, administratively workable standard for mortgagees. However, the decision may limit protective effect for homeowners who never receive actual notice of their foreclosure or assistance options.
The decision reinforces the summary judgment standard in mortgage foreclosure cases. A promissory note endorsed in blank, coupled with an affidavit of entitlement, creates a strong presumption of ownership that shifts the burden to the mortgagor to present evidence to the contrary. This standard generally favors mortgagees in establishing the core requirement of ownership necessary to foreclose, though mortgagors can still raise authentic factual disputes if they present evidence.