Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. ANN C. ZUBRETSKY ET AL. (AC 31573)
Lavine, Robinson and West, Js. Argued March 23--officially released July 12, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Holzberg, J.) Gary J. Greene, with whom was S. Zaid Hassan, for the appellant (defendant). Michael G. Albano, for the appellee (defendant The Cadle Company).

Opinion

LAVINE, J. In this foreclosure action, the defendant Ann C. Zubretsky appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her homestead exemption claim in which she sought to exempt $75,000 of the net proceeds from the voluntary sale of her home.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) not conducting an evidentiary hearing on her homestead exemption claim and (2) concluding that the homestead exemption is not available to protect the proceeds of a voluntary sale from a judgment lien creditor. We conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to act on the defendant's homestead exemption claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The defendant mortgaged to the plaintiff, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., real property located at 16 Chapman Drive in Westbrook (property). On April 24, 2009, the plaintiff initiated a foreclosure action on the property, claiming that the mortgage was in default.2 The plaintiff also named The Cadle Company (Cadle) as a defendant, alleging that Cadle could claim a subsequent interest in the property by virtue of two judgment liens on the property in the amounts of $33,333.13 and $120,175.25. On May 23, 2009, the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the property for $585,000. On June 11, 2009, the defendant filed a homestead exemption claim seeking to exempt up to $75,000 of the balance of the proceeds from the sale of the property from Cadle's right of recovery. Cadle opposed the defendant's homestead claim, arguing that the defendant, through a private sale, was seeking to invoke a safeguard afforded to a judgment debtor in a proceeding brought by a judgment creditor. On July 2, 2009, the court denied the defendant's homestead exemption claim. On July 14, 2009, the defendant filed a motion for articulation and reargument of the court's July 2, 2009 order. The court granted the defendant's motion, and, on September 2, 2009, the court heard reargument on the defendant's homestead exemption claim. On September 9, 2009, the defendant sold the property and satisfied the two mortgages held by the plaintiff. To effectuate the sale of the property, Cadle agreed to release its two liens and entered into an escrow agreement with the defendant. After the defendant satisfied the mortgages, she had a balance of $85,522.91 from the proceeds of the sale, which was placed in escrow. On September 16, 2009, the plaintiff withdrew the action as to all parties. On September 24, 2009, the court denied the defendant's homestead exemption claim, concluding that the homestead exemption is

inapplicable to voluntary sales and foreclosure of consensual liens. This appeal followed. The defendant claims that the court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing on her homestead exemption claim and in concluding that the homestead exemption is not available to protect the proceeds of a voluntary sale from a judgment lien creditor. Before we address these issues on appeal, we must first determine whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to address the defendant's homestead exemption claim on September 24, 2009. The parties failed to address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in their initial briefs to this court. We, sua sponte, ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue its September 24, 2009 judgment denying the defendant's homestead exemption claim. After reviewing the arguments presented by the parties, we conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the defendant's claim. ``We have long held that because [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary. . . . Moreover, [i]t is a fundamental rule that a court may raise and review the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. . . . Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it. . . . [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction. . . . The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514, 532

Download JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Zubretsky.pdf

Connecticut Law