ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> A Connecticut Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

State Law

: A Connecticut Law Blog

Fighting Foreclosure In Connecticut Courts

By Ryan

ADVERTISEMENTS

I’ve posted here before about what happens on Connecticut’s foreclosure dockets.

I like the underdog (not so fast Rays) and I like good lawyering.

A few months ago, I was waiting for my case to be called on the foreclosure docket when I saw a lawyer fight back on behalf of his client.

I’m not sure of the lawyer’s name or the name of the case but whoever he is - he pushed back against the tidal wave that is the foreclosure mess in Connecticut.

You see, when his client received the foreclosure notice he filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, negligent lending and CUTPA and he didn’t stop there.

He served the lender with discovery requests pertaining to the ownership of the note.

And much to the annoyance of lender’s counsel, he didn’t stop with written discovery, he wanted to depose the officers of the company that wrote the mortgage. The lender was a California company and all of its employees lived in California.

The lender’s attorney argued that a deposition wasn’t necessary. Judge Satter would have none of it.

Seeing this, the lender argued that a video depositon is what the court should order.

Homeowner’s counsel objected to this saying that it is important for him to “size up” a witness which is not something he could do through video conference.  Counsel for the lender responded that flying employees to Connecticut for a deposition wouldn’t be fair to the lender due to the expense.

Neither lender’s counsel nor the lawyer for the homeowner would back down.

You know what Judge Satter said to lender’s counsel? He said that they choose to write mortgages in Connecticut. Judge Satter then ordered that the lender had to make its officers available for live deposition in Hartford.

I don’t know what happened to the case or the homeowner’s claims. I do know counsel for the lender was not pleased.

At least in that court, on that day, a homeowner did the unexpected and challenged the lender.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Full post as published by A Connecticut Law Blog on October 17, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0025 secs (from cache 10/31/26 09:37:03)