Opinion
KNLCV176031942S
01-30-2019
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tina Boyle
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Knox, Kimberly Ann, J.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Knox, J.
BACKGROUND
The substituted plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, not in its Individual Capacity but Solely as Trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT (hereinafter "the plaintiff") moves for summary judgment on this action to quiet title to property located and known as 415 Round Hill Road in Salem, Connecticut. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is limited to count four of the complaint, seeking a judgment on a claim of unjust enrichment and the imposition of a constructive trust in the form of a mortgage upon the ownership interest of the defendant, Tina M. Boyle, in and to the subject property.
FACTS
In count four of the plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff alleges that "[t]he use of the loan proceeds by the defendant Tina M. Boyle, and the acceptance conferred thereby, without making just and fair compensation therefore, results in the unjust enrichment of said defendant to the detriment of said plaintiff." See Pl.’s Compl., ¶14. With regard to count four, the defendant generally denies the allegations. The defendant’s responses to a subsequent request to admit, however, demonstrate that there is no dispute as to the following facts. In 2004, the defendant and her now deceased husband, Charles Sullivan (Sullivan), executed a promissory note and mortgage deed in the approximate sum of $144,000 in favor of Washington Mutual Bank. In 2010, Sullivan alone applied for and received a loan refinancing from the plaintiff’s predecessor in the approximate sum of $132,938. These proceeds were used to pay and discharge the 2004 promissory note and mortgage deed originally in favor of Washington Mutual Bank. Sullivan remitted the mortgage payments to the plaintiff’s predecessor until his death. The substitute plaintiff is the alleged holder of the 2010 mortgage and note. The substitute plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s predecessors will be referred to as the plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
"Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Connecticut Medical Ins. Co. v. Kulikowski, 286 Conn. 1, 4-5, 942 A.2d 334 (2008).
Sullivan’s pay-off of the prior Washington Mutual mortgage in the amount of $132,938 is the basis for claimed unjust enrichment. The court finds that the payment made by the defendant’s deceased husband, Sullivan, which discharged the note and deed in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, relieved both Sullivan and the defendant of their respective obligations to that third party. That benefit, however, is not dispositive of the remaining factual issues that must be determined on the plaintiff’s claim of unjust enrichment.
When seeking recovery for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove "(1) that the [defendant] [was] benefitted, (2) that the [defendant] unjustly did not pay the [plaintiff] for the benefits, and (3) that the failure of payment was to the plaintiff’s] detriment. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nation Electrical Contracting, LLC v. St. Dimitrie Romanian Orthodox Church, 144 Conn.App. 808, 815-16, 74 A.3d 474 (2013); see also Noyes v. Antiques at Pompey Hollow, LLC, 144 Conn.App. 582, 590, 73 A.3d 794 (2013).
In this motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant "unjustly did not pay the [plaintiff] for the benefits." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Nation Electrical Contracting, LLC v. St. Dimitrie Romanian Orthodox Church, supra, 144 Conn.App. 815. First, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant unjustly did not pay the plaintiff because she neither applied for a loan nor received any funds from the plaintiff. Second, there are sufficient facts that show that Sullivan paid for any alleged benefit, namely, he made payments on the loan and provided security for the loan by virtue of a mortgage on his interest in the property.
Further, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the value of the alleged detriment to the plaintiff, if any, in 2010. The court cannot determine, on this record, whether Sullivan’s interest in the property was greater, lesser or equivalent to the amount of the loan secured by his interest in the property in 2010. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to the detriment, if any, to the plaintiff in 2010. Lastly, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the value of the alleged detriment to the plaintiff after 2010, due to payments made by Sullivan and subsequent payments made by the defendant when she believed she was paying the 2004 mortgage. The court cannot ascertain on the present record the current value of the detriment, if any, to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff relies, in part, on HSBC Bank SA, National Ass’n v. D’Agostino, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. CV-09-6002754-S (May 21, 2015, Mottolese, J.T.R.). In HSBC Bank SA, National Ass’n, the plaintiff filed a foreclosure action, which was decided after a trial on the merits. Id. In that case, the defendants, a wife and husband, purchased a home with financing obtained by the plaintiff’s successor in interest. Id. The loan financing documents were incorrectly prepared so that only the wife executed the promissory note and mortgage deed. Id. The mortgage should have included the husband and encumbered 100 percent of the ownership interest in the property. Id. There was evidence that the husband had expected to sign the mortgage. Id. The loan went into default, the plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action, and sought to include in the mortgage the husband’s one-half interest in the property. Id. The court found that the husband, who was knowledgeable about loan transactions, understood the benefits of the error made with regard to the mortgage. Id. The court first found the husband liable under the mortgage by ratification. Id. On the unjust enrichment claim the court concluded that the husband was unjustly enriched by his failure to provide a fully collateralized loan. Id.
The present case is distinguishable because the defendant was unaware that Sullivan, in 2010, applied for the financing and received funds that were used to pay, discharge, and release the 2004 mortgage. Unlike HSBC Bank SA, National Ass’n, where the spouse knew about the financial transaction and understood that he benefitted from not being on the mortgage, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant knew about the transaction between the plaintiff and Sullivan or knew of any benefit to her. As such, the court cannot find that the defendant "unjustly did not pay the [plaintiff] for the benefits." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Nation Electrical Contracting, LLC v. St. Dimitrie Romanian Orthodox Church, supra, 144 Conn.App. 815.
Finally, in moving for summary judgment the plaintiff seeks a constructive trust on the defendant’s interest in the property. There is insufficient evidence on either the value or quantifiable interest which is being sought.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact and that the movant did not meet its burden. Thus, the motion for summary judgment is denied.