Posted on 01 July 2010.
by Thomas MacMillan | Jul 1, 2010 4:16 pm NewHavenIndependent
While working to earn votes in her pursuit of a state representative seat, Debra Hauser has been involved in another campaign—to save her East Rock home.
“My husband had a failed business,” Hauser said on Thursday afternoon, when asked about the circumstances of foreclosure proceedings against her. She said she has recently come to an agreement with her lender to pay back the money her family owes.
Hauser (pictured), a psychologist, is one of two Democrats running for New Haven’s only open state legislative seat, representing the 96th General Assembly district. The district includes parts of Hamden and parts of New Haven, including East Rock, Fair Haven, and Wooster Square. Her opponent for the Democratic nomination is East Rock Alderman Roland Lemar.
Foreclosure proceedings on her house at 396 Livingston St. (pictured) in East Rock were initiated in November 2009. Hauser’s lawyer, James Brownstein, stated on Thursday that a settlement with the bank had been reached, but that the final settlement paperwork has not yet been filed.
An online database lists the value of Hauser’s home and property at $631,890.
According to the foreclosure case file in the clerk’s office at Superior Court on Church Street, New Alliance Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against Hauser in November 2009. The complaint lists Hauser, her husband Jack Hauser, and Connecticut Weight And Wellness, LLC as defendants. Jack Hauser is the principal of CT Weight And Wellness.
According to the complaint, the Hausers mortgaged their home for a $500,000 loan to CT Weight And Wellness in October 2007. By June 2009, they had defaulted on the mortgage. In October 2009, the bank sent a written demand for payment. When no payment was made, the bank filed for strict foreclosure and breach of contract against Jack Hauser and CT Weight and Wellness.
Marshal Peter Criscuolo earned $108.80 for serving the Hausers’ lawyer with foreclosure papers on Nov. 12, 2009.
Jack Hauser filed for bankruptcy on Nov. 30, 2009.
Over the next six months, lawyers for the Hausers and the bank traded repeated motions asking for information and objecting to the questions being asked. On April 26, in a filing by lawyers for New Alliance, the bank charged that “The Defendants are guilty of repeated vexatious and dilatory tactics, which have substantially delayed this action and forced the Plaintiff to incur unnecessary attorneys fees.”
The same document accused the Hausers of using a “dragnet method of requesting information in hopes of obtaining a defense.” The bank objected to what it characterized as overly broad discovery requests by the Hausers’ lawyer.
“I didn’t think they were dilatory,” said Brownstein, Hauser’s lawyer, on Thursday. The bank’s charges are standard rhetoric between lawyers, he said.
Hauser said she and her attorney cooperated fully with the foreclosure case.
On June 3, the judge granted the bank’s motion to default because of the Hausers’ failure to plead. Brownstein said on Thursday that the Hausers had not responded to the complaint with a plea because they had been on the verge of a settlement.
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.