Opinion
No. TTD CV 06 6000043 S
October 29, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The substitute plaintiff, GRP Loan, LLC (GRP), moves for summary judgment as to liability only in this mortgage foreclosure action.
Summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings and documentary proof submitted demonstrate that no genuine dispute as to material facts exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Practice Book § 17-49.
The owners of the equity of redemption are Peter J. Murphy and Mary M. Murphy. They oppose this motion solely on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the original plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), owned the note secured by the mortgage in question at the time this suit was initiated on August 15, 2006. According to these defendants, transactions recorded in the Coventry Land Records, where the premises is located, disclose conflicting chains of ownership of the note on that date. They argue that this conflict creates a factual controversy as to whether Wells Fargo had standing to bring this foreclosure action.
In the complaint, Wells Fargo alleges that Diversified Mortgage Co., Inc. (Diversified), lent $165,700 to the Murphys, which loan was evidenced by a note and mortgage, dated May 1, 1996. On the same day, Diversified assigned the note and mortgage to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. (Norwest). Eventually, Norwest merged with Wells Fargo.
The defendants point out that the same land records also contain transactions indicating that on June 17, 2004, Wells Fargo assigned the mortgage and note in question to Ocwen Partnership, LP (Ocwen), who in turn assigned the mortgage and note to Bayview Financial Trading Group, LP (Bayview). The records show Bayview assigned the mortgage and note to GRP, the present plaintiff, in April 2006. Finally, on February 2, 2009, Wells Fargo also assigned its interest in the mortgage and note to GRP.
As a result, the land records reveal two, distinct paths of ownership of the note from Wells Fargo to GRP, which entity was substituted as plaintiff for Wells Fargo on March 16, 2009, in this case. One chain of assignments goes from Wells Fargo to Ocwen to Bayview to GRP, making GRP the holder of the note as of April 2006, four months before Wells Fargo commenced this foreclosure action in August 2006. The second chain runs from Norwest to Wells Fargo in July 2000 and to GRP in February 2009, which path has Wells Fargo as holder of the note when suit began in August 2006.
The defendants contend that if GRP was the holder of the note in August 2006, Wells Fargo had no standing to initiate this suit, and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter despite the substitution of GRP for Wells Fargo while the case was pending in March 2009.
This contention, however, is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law regarding assignments. Under the law, both the assignor and assignee of a legal interest have standing to bring a suit against a third party to vindicate that interest. The assignee is empowered to sue, in the assignee's own name, by virtue of General Statutes § 52-118. However, under the common law, the assignor retains the right to sue even though the legal interest has been assigned to another. Smith v. Waterbury and Milldale Tramway Co., 99 Conn. 446, 451 (1923). "The right of the assignor to sue in his own name, as at common law, still exists." Id.
Either the assignor or assignee is "a proper party plaintiff." Torrington Creamery, Inc. v. Davenport, 126 Conn. 515, 521 (1940). This rule of dual standing applies to foreclosure proceedings. Joseph v. Donovan, 114 Conn. 79, 82 (1931). More recently, it has been held that an assignee may sue under its own name or that of an assignor. Dime Savings Bank v. Arpaia, 55 Conn.App. 180, 184 (1999).
Consequently, it is immaterial which chain of assignments leads to GRP from Wells Fargo. As an undisputed assignor of the note and mortgage, Wells Fargo had standing to initiate this foreclosure action whether it held the note on the date suit commenced or had assigned it previously.
Because the defendants' only ground for denial of this summary judgment motion is a lack of standing by Wells Fargo to bring this action, summary judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff as to liability.