Back by popular demand…first posted this back on July 1, 2010.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As Trustee of Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-X3, Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of September 1, 2004, Without Recourse, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID J. GAUPP, ALEXANDRA C. GAUPP, NATHAN PARTON and SPOUSE OF NATHAN PARTON, REBEKAH J. BARTON and SPOUSE OF REBEKAH J. BARTON, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and PARTIES IN POSSESSION,, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 0-272/09-0700.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Filed June 30, 2010.

Excerpt:

On October 21, 2008, the Partons and Wells Fargo filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that (1) the mortgage held by Deutsche Bank was invalid; and (2) the mortgage held by Deutsche Bank could not be foreclosed because the Partons were bona fide purchasers for value. On February 12, 2009, the district court issued its ruling finding that the Gaupps and Granger conveyed their interest in the property to G & G Properties on July 3, 2002, and when G & G Properties recorded the deed on September 24, 2002, it became the record titleholder. Gaupp did not have any interest in the property when he executed the mortgage in favor of Ameriquest/Deutsche Bank and after the mortgage was executed, Gaupp never obtained title to the property. G & G Properties did not convey the property to anyone prior to May 19, 2006, when the Partons purchased the property. As a result, the mortgage held by Deutsche Bank was “null and void.” The district court granted the Partons and Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition for foreclosure. Deutsche Bank appeals.

<SNIP>

Deutsche Bank asserts that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The parties do not dispute that at the time Gaupp executed the promissory note and mortgage, he did not hold title to the property and that G & G Properties was the record titleholder. Deutsche Bank cannot avoid the fundamental principal that a party that has no interest in a particular piece of real property cannot validly mortgage that property. See, e.g., Lee v. Lee, 207 Iowa 882, 885, 223 N.W. 888, 890 (Iowa 1929) (holding a mortgage invalid because the mortgagor had no interest in the property at the time the mortgage was given); 59 C.J.S. Mortgages § 111, at 102-03 (2009) (discussing that “[o]ne who has no ownership interest in property has no right to mortgage it” and if one does so, the mortgage creates no interest in the property). At the time Gaupp obtained the loan from Ameriquest, he did not have any interest in the property and therefore, the mortgage instrument attempting to secure the promissory note was invalid.

Deutsche Bank argues that Gaupp acquired title to the property on December 31, 2003, when the Gaupps and Granger executed the “Corrected Warranty Deed,” which Deutsche Bank further argues resulted in the mortgage becoming valid.^{[ 3 ]} However, this argument fails because Gaupp did not acquire an interest in the property when the “Corrected Warranty Deed” was executed on December 31, 2003. On July 3, 2002, the Gaupps and Granger conveyed the property to G & G Properties. After this conveyance, Gaupp had no interest in the property and could not convey the property to anyone. See Iowa Code § 557.3 (2007) (“Every conveyance of real estate passes all the interest of the grantor therein, unless a contrary intent can be reasonably inferred from the terms used.”). After the July 3, 2002 conveyance, only G & G Properties was able to convey title to the property. Any such attempt by Gaupp to do so would be and was invalid as he was no longer the titleholder. Therefore, the attempts by the Gaupps and Granger to convey the property on December 31, 2003, and February 2, 2005, were not valid conveyances.^{[ 4 ]} Additionally, because the invalid conveyances were outside the chain of title, they were stray deeds when recorded. See William Stoebuck and Dale Whitman, The Law of Property § 11.11 (3^rd ed. 2000) (“The term `chain of title’ is a shorthand way of describing the collection of documents which one can find by the use of the ordinary techniques of title search.”); 1 C.J.S. Abstracts of Title § 15, at 320 n.8 (2009) (“Instrument executed by owner [that] is recorded before acquisition or after relinquishment of title by owner is outside chain of title . . . .”).^{[ 5 ]} Title remained with G & G Properties from July 3, 2002 until May 5, 2006, when G & G Properties conveyed its solely held interest in the property to the Partons. Therefore the chain of title went from G & G Properties to the Partons. Gaupp did not have title to the property when he executed the mortgage instrument now held by Deutsche Bank nor did he subsequently obtain title. We affirm the district court’s findings and ruling.

Continue reading below…

deutsche bank v. gaupp

[ipaper docId=43882170 access_key=key-1f17kw0du74j6dtls3yz height=600 width=600 /]

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE,
v.
PAUL BIALOBRZESKI.
(AC 29884).

Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Argued January 13, 2010.
Officially released September 21, 2010.

Paul Bialobrzeski, pro se, the appellant (defendant).

Andrew P. Barsom, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Flynn, C. J., and Bishop and Robinson, Js.[*]

Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

In this foreclosure action, the pro se defendant, Paul Bialobrzeski, claims that the plaintiff[1] lacked standing to bring the action because it was not in possession of the subject note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced. The resolution of that claim is predicated on a finding of fact that is not part of the record. Our rules of practice require the appellant to provide an adequate record for review. See Practice Book §§ 60-5 and 61-10. Because the record is devoid of a factual finding as to when the plaintiff came into possession of the note, we are unable to review the claim as to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.

The following procedural history is relevant to the defendant’s appeal. On October 22, 2007, the plaintiff caused a writ of summons and complaint to be served on the defendant to foreclose the mortgage on real property located at 254 Slater Road in New Britain. The defendant filed a pro se appearance on November 19, 2007. On December 4, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for default for failure to plead, which was granted by the clerk. On December 13, 2007, the defendant filed an answer[2] and a motion for a continuance to retain counsel. On December 17, 2007, the court, Domnarski, J., opened the default in view of the answer filed by the defendant. On January 22, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that “there are no genuine issues as to any material facts, and therefore moves for [s]ummary [j]udgment as to liability only.”[3] The defendant did not file an objection thereto. Summary judgment as to the defendant’s liability was granted summarily by the court, Dunnell, J., on February 11, 2008.[4]

On March 17, 2008, the defendant filed a motion for a continuance in which he represented that he had retained counsel, who was out of the state on business, and that counsel was necessary to articulate the defendant’s defenses and to “press forward” his motion for permission to amend his answer and to file special defenses.[5] The plaintiff objected to the motion to amend.[6] On March 27, 2008, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action. In a memorandum of law in support of the motion, he stated: “The plaintiff . . . commenced this foreclosure action on October 19, 2007. The plaintiff claims ownership of the mortgage through an assignment dated November 8, 2007 and recorded November 28, 2007. The note submitted as an exhibit contains no endorsement and no date.” Judge Domnarski denied the motion to dismiss and sustained the plaintiff’s objection thereto. On April 21, 2008, Judge Domnarski rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale, setting a sale date of August 2, 2008. The defendant filed this appeal on May 6, 2008,[7] and thereafter a motion for articulation.

In response to the defendant’s motion for articulation seeking the basis of the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, Judge Domnarski articulated: “(1) Summary judgment as to liability had previously been entered against the defendant on February 11, 2008, Dunnell, J. [and] (2) The plaintiff alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint that it is the holder of the note and mortgage. See Villager Pond, Inc. v. [Darien], 54 Conn. App. 178 [734 A.2d 1031 (1999)].” The defendant did not seek further articulation or file a motion for review in this court. See Practice Book § 66-7.

On appeal, the defendant claims that Judge Domnarski erred “in denying the defendant’s [m]otion to [d]ismiss a mortgage foreclosure action in which the [writ of] summons, and complaint had been initiated by a plaintiff which did not own either the note or the mortgage at the time the action was initiated, lacked standing to pursue the foreclosure action, and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the [m]otion for [f]oreclosure.”

We begin by setting forth the appropriate standard of review. “A motion to dismiss . . . properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court. . . . [O]ur review of the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [denial] of the motion to dismiss will be de novo. . . . Factual findings underlying the court’s decision, however, will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. . . . The applicable standard of review for the denial of a motion to dismiss, therefore, generally turns on whether the appellant seeks to challenge the legal conclusions of the trial court or its factual determinations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bonner, 290 Conn. 468, 477-78, 964 A.2d 73 (2009).

We first look to the relevant allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. At paragraph 4, the plaintiff alleged, in part, “The Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3, is the holder of said Note and Mortgage.” In answering the complaint, the defendant left the plaintiff to its proof as to that allegation. When the plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment on January 22, 2008, it attached copies of the subject note and mortgage and an assignment of the mortgage. The defendant failed to object to the motion for summary judgment or to submit any evidence that would create a genuine issue of material fact as to when the plaintiff acquired the note. See Practice Book § 17-45. Judge Dunnell granted the motion for summary judgment as to the defendant’s liability on February 11, 2008. The defendant did not file a motion to reargue but instead, on March 17, 2008, filed a motion for permission to amend his answer and to file special defenses, including a special defense that the plaintiff did not own the mortgage at the time the action was commenced. On March 27, 2008, the defendant also filed a motion to dismiss the action and in the memorandum of law in support thereof stated that the note submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment contained no endorsement and no date.

Although our review of the file demonstrates that the copy of the note submitted with the motion for summary judgment does not contain an endorsement and is not dated, the defendant has not claimed on appeal that Judge Dunnell improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.[8] Rather, the defendant attacks Judge Domnarski’s reliance on Judge Dunnell’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment. The substance of the defendant’s appellate claim is that the mortgage was not assigned to the plaintiff until sometime after the action was commenced, and the plaintiff did not own the note at the time it commenced the action.[9] The defendant, however, cannot rely on the date the mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff as proof that the plaintiff did not own the note on the date the action was commenced.

“General Statutes § 49-17 permits the holder of a negotiable instrument that is secured by a mortgage to foreclose on the mortgage even when the mortgage has not yet been assigned to him. . . . The statute codifies the common-law principle of long standing that the mortgage follows the note, pursuant to which only the rightful owner of the note has the right to enforce the mortgage. . . . Our legislature, by adopting § 49-17, has provide[d] an avenue for the holder of the note to foreclose on the property when the mortgage has not been assigned to him.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570, 576-77, 989 A.2d 606, cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922, 991 A.2d 564 (2010).

The key to resolving the defendant’s claim is a determination of when the note came into the plaintiff’s possession. We cannot review the claim because Judge Domnarski made no factual finding as to when the plaintiff acquired the note. Without that factual determination, we are unable to say whether Judge Domnarski improperly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.[10] Although it is the appellant’s responsibility to provide an adequate record for review; see Practice Book §§ 60-5 and 61-10; that cannot be the end of the matter because it concerns the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

“[S]ubject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it . . . and a judgment rendered without subject matter jurisdiction is void. . . . Further, it is well established that a reviewing court properly may address jurisdictional claims that neither were raised nor ruled on in the trial court. . . . Indeed, [o]nce the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, [it] must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented. . . . The court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re DeLeon J., 290 Conn. 371, 376, 963 A.2d 53 (2009). The burden of demonstrating that a party has standing to bring an action is on the plaintiff. Seymour v. Region One Board of Education, 274 Conn. 92, 104, 874 A.2d 742, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1016, 126 S. Ct. 659, 163 L. Ed. 2d 526 (2005).

“Trial courts addressing motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to [Practice Book] § 10-31 (a) (1) may encounter different situations, depending on the status of the record in the case. As summarized by a federal court discussing motions brought pursuant to the analogous federal rule [i.e., Fed. R. Civ. P. (12) (b) (1)], [l]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts. . . . Different rules and procedures will apply, depending on the state of the record at the time the motion is filed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650-51, 974 A.2d 669 (2009).

“[I]f the complaint is supplemented by undisputed facts established by affidavits submitted in support of the motions to dismiss . . . the trial court, in determining the jurisdictional issue, may consider these supplementary undisputed facts and need not conclusively presume the validity of the allegations of the complaint.. . . [W]here a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 651-52.

In this case, the defendant questioned the plaintiff’s standing to bring the foreclosure action at the time the action was commenced. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was inspired by the exhibits attached to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The affidavit of Peter Read, an assistant vice president of Washington Mutual Bank, attests to the plaintiff being the holder of the note, but it does not resolve the factual issue as to when the plaintiff acquired the note.[11] See footnote 3 of this opinion. When the question regarding the plaintiff’s standing was raised, the court should have held a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff was the owner or holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. See Conboy v. State, supra, 292 Conn. 651-52. It is fundamental that appellate courts do not make findings of fact. Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction, 112 Conn. App. 675, 683 n.1, 963 A.2d 1077 (when record on appeal devoid of factual findings, improper for appellate court to make its own findings), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1221 (2009). The case, therefore, must be remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff was the owner or holder of the subject note at the time the action was commenced. See Cross v. Hudon, 27 Conn. App. 729, 734, 609 A.2d 1021 (1992) (court improperly failed to conduct evidentiary hearing because jurisdiction hinged on factual determination).

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

[*] The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.

[1] The plaintiff is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3.

[2] In his answer, the pro se defendant admitted that he owned the property at 254 Slater Road in New Britain and that on February 28, 2006, he executed and delivered to Long Beach Mortgage Company a note for a loan in the principal amount of $220,000. He also admitted that he is the owner of the equity of redemption in the property and is in possession of the property. The defendant left the plaintiff to its proof as to the remaining allegations of the complaint.

[3] Our review of the file demonstrates that the plaintiff attached copies of the following documents as exhibits to its motion for summary judgment: the defendant’s answer, an affidavit signed by Peter Read, an assistant vice president of Washington Mutual Bank, the subject fixed-adjustable rate note—payable to Long Beach Mortgage Company without an endorsement, the subject mortgage, the assignment of the mortgage and the notice of intent to accelerate.

In his affidavit, Read attested, among other things, as to the plaintiff’s ownership of the mortgage and note as follows: “Said mortgage was thereafter assigned to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3 by virtue of an assignment of mortgage recorded in Volume 1725 at Page 1024 of the New Britain Land Records. A true and accurate copy of said assignment is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Plaintiff in this action, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3, is the owner and holder of said note and mortgage.” Significantly, Read does not attest in the affidavit to the date the plaintiff acquired the note.

[4] The defendant did not file a motion asking Judge Dunnell to articulate the basis on which she made the factual determination that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; see Practice Book § 17-49; including the issue of the ownership of the note and mortgage and to whom the defendant was liable.

[5] The defendant proposed two special defenses. His first special defense is that the plaintiff did not own the mortgage at the time the action was commenced and his second special defense is that Washington Mutual Bank mailed the notice of intent to accelerate to the defendant but had no authority to do so as Long Beach Mortgage Company owned the mortgage at the time.

[6] According to the record, the court never ruled on the motion for permission to amend and the objection thereto.

[7] In its brief, the plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to preserve the issue presented or timely file his appeal because the appeal was not filed within twenty days of the date the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Generally, the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory ruling. Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 645 n.5, 974 A.2d 669 (2009); but see Ware v. State, 118 Conn. App. 65, 79, 983 A.2d 853 (2009) (denial of motion to dismiss based on colorable claim of sovereign immunity immediately appealable). The defendant timely filed his appeal within twenty days of the court rendering the judgment of foreclosure by sale. See Glenfed Mortgage Corp. v. Crowley, 61 Conn. App. 84, 88, 763 A.2d 19 (2000) (foreclosure by sale appealable final judgment).

[8] Even if the defendant had claimed that Judge Dunnell improperly granted the motion for summary judgment, there is no record that Judge Dunnell found that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff became the owner of the note prior to the commencement of the action.

[9] The defendant also notes correctly that the copy of the note attached to the motion for summary judgment lacked an endorsement. We have no way of knowing if Judge Dunnell inquired about that before ruling on the motion for summary judgment. In its brief to this court, the plaintiff states that the “original Note bearing endorsement was produced to the trial court at the hearing on April 21, 2008.” On April 21, 2008, judgment was rendered. It was not the date on which the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was decided. Moreover, the endorsement is not proof of the date on which the plaintiff acquired the note.

[10] The defendant did not file any exhibits or transcripts of proceedings in the trial court, if any. We do not know whether any evidence other than the attachments to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were presented to either court at the time the motion for summary judgment and the motion to dismiss were decided. The defendant has not claimed that the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to determine its ownership of the note.

[11] On appeal, the plaintiff has argued, supported by citations to authority, that the holder of a note rightly may foreclose the mortgage. That argument, however, is beside the point. The relevant question is when the plaintiff became the holder.

___________________________________________________________

LASALLE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIAT-ION (TRUSTEE),
v.
PAUL S. BIALOBRZESKI ET AL.
(AC 30911).

Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Argued January 13, 2010.
Officially released September 21, 2010.

Paul S. Bialobrzeski, pro se, the appellant (defendant).

Andrew P. Barsom, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Flynn, C. J., and Bishop and Robinson, Js.[*]

Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

The pro se defendant Paul S. Bialobrzeski[1] appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, LaSalle Bank, National Association, as trustee for WMABS Series 2006-HE[2] Trust.2 On appeal, the defendant claims that it was improper for the trial court to deny his motion to dismiss the action because the plaintiff lacked standing. Because the record is devoid of a factual finding as to when the plaintiff acquired the note, we are unable to review the claim as to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Practice Book §§ 60-5 and 61-10. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.

The following procedural history is relevant to the defendant’s appeal. On October 29, 2007, the plaintiff caused a writ of summons and complaint to be served on the defendant to foreclose the mortgage on real property at 121 Colonial Avenue in Middlebury. The defendant filed a pro se appearance on November 16, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the defendant filed an answer to the complaint in which he admitted that (1) he owned the real property at 121 Colonial Avenue in Middlebury, (2) on March 16, 2006, he executed and delivered to Long Beach Mortgage Corporation a note in the original principal amount of $350,000, and (3) he was the owner of the equity of redemption in the property and was in possession of the property. As to the remaining counts of the complaint, the defendant left the plaintiff to its proof. On that same date, the defendant filed a motion for a continuance in order to retain counsel to defend against the motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure that had been filed by the plaintiff.

On January 24, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to the defendant’s liability and attached his answer; an affidavit of Peter Read, an assistant vice president of Washington Mutual Bank, attesting that the plaintiff was the owner of the note and mortgage,[3] and that the debt was in default and the balance due; and copies of the note,[4] mortgage, assignment of the mortgage[5] and notice of intent to accelerate. The court granted the motion for summary judgment as to liability on February 11, 2008, noting that the motion had been unopposed.[6] Thereafter the defendant retained counsel, who filed a motion for permission to amend the defendant’s answer and to allege special defenses. The first proposed special defense alleged that the assignment of the mortgage from Long Beach Mortgage Company to LaSalle Bank was executed subsequent to the commencement of the action. The second proposed special defense alleged that Washington Mutual Bank allegedly mailed a notice of intent to accelerate to the defendant on May 6, 2007, and on that date the owner of the note and mortgage was Long Beach Mortgage Company and that Washington Mutual Bank lacked authority to act on behalf of Long Beach Mortgage Company. Moreover, the defendant alleged that the notice of intent to accelerate was void and the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment of foreclosure.[7] The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s motion for permission to amend his answer and to file special defenses.[8]

On March 20, 2008, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action. In his memorandum of law in support of his motion to dismiss, the defendant stated that the action was filed on November 1, 2007, but the subject mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff on November 27, 2007, and therefore the plaintiff was not the owner of the mortgage on the date the action was commenced and lacked standing to bring it. The plaintiff objected to the motion to dismiss and argued that it was in possession of the subject note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced and that the court could take notice of the endorsement of the note by Long Beach Mortgage Company.[9] The plaintiff also cited General Statutes § 49-17 for the proposition that the statute provides an avenue for the holder of a note to obtain a judgment of foreclosure on the accompanying mortgage deed even if it had not been or never was formally assigned. On March 31, 2008, the defendant filed a supplemental memorandum of law in support of his motion to dismiss in which he contended that the burden was on the plaintiff to demonstrate that it possessed the note on the date the action was commenced and that the operation of § 49-17 does not provide proof of when the plaintiff came into possession of the note.[10]

On January 5, 2009, the court sustained the plaintiff’s objection to the motion to dismiss stating that “[t]he issue is moot, as the court has already ruled on the summary judgment motion.”[11] On March 2, 2009, the court rendered judgment of strict foreclosure and set the law day as July 28, 2009. The defendant appealed, claiming that it was improper for the court to deny his motion to dismiss because the plaintiff did not own either the note or the mortgage at the time it commenced the action and, thus, lacked standing, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.[12]

The standard of review applicable to a motion to dismiss is well established. “A motion to dismiss . . . properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court. . . . [O]ur review of the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [denial] of the motion to dismiss will be de novo. . . . Factual findings underlying the court’s decision, however, will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. . . . The applicable standard of review for the denial of a motion to dismiss, therefore, generally turns on whether the appellant seeks to challenge the legal conclusions of the trial court or its factual determinations.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bonner, 290 Conn. 468, 477-78, 964 A.2d 73 (2009).

We first look to the relevant allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. At paragraph 4, the plaintiff alleged, in part: “The [p]laintiff, LaSalle Bank, National Association as trustee for WMABS Series 2006-HE2 Trust, is the holder of said Note and Mortgage.” In answering the complaint, the defendant left the plaintiff to its proof as to that allegation. When the plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment on January 24, 2008, it attached copies of the subject note and mortgage and an assignment of the mortgage. At the time the court granted the motion for summary judgment as to liability, it noted that the motion had been unopposed. The defendant did not file a motion for reargument but sought to amend his answer to include a special defense that the plaintiff did not own the mortgage at the time the action was commenced. The defendant also filed a motion to dismiss the action.

Although our review of the file demonstrates that the copy of the note submitted with the motion for summary judgment does not contain a dated endorsement, the defendant has not claimed on appeal that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.[13] Rather, the defendant challenges the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. The substance of the defendant’s appellate claim is that the plaintiff did not own the note at the time it commenced the action, and the mortgage was not assigned to the plaintiff until sometime after the action was commenced. The defendant, however, cannot rely on the date the mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff as proof that the plaintiff did not own the note on the date the action was commenced.

“[Section] § 49-17 permits the holder of a negotiable instrument that is secured by a mortgage to foreclose on the mortgage even when the mortgage has not yet been assigned to him. . . . The statute codifies the common-law principle of long standing that the mortgage follows the note, pursuant to which only the rightful owner of the note has the right to enforce the mortgage. . . . Our legislature, by adopting § 49-17, has provide[d] an avenue for the holder of the note to foreclose on the property when the mortgage has not been assigned to him.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570, 576-77, 989 A.2d 606, cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922, 991 A.2d 564 (2010).

The key to resolving the defendant’s claim is a determination of when the note came into the plaintiff’s possession. We cannot review this claim because the court made no factual finding as to when the plaintiff acquired the note. Without that factual determination, we are unable to say whether the court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.[14] Although the defendant did not file a motion asking the court to articulate its reason for denying the motion to dismiss, that cannot be the end of the matter because it concerns the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

“[S]ubject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it . . . and a judgment rendered without subject matter jurisdiction is void. . . . Further, it is well established that a reviewing court properly may address jurisdictional claims that neither were raised nor ruled on in the trial court. . . . Indeed, [o]nce the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, [it] must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented. . . . The court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re DeLeon J., 290 Conn. 371, 376, 963 A.2d 53 (2009). The burden of demonstrating that a party has standing to bring an action is on the plaintiff. Seymour v. Region One Board of Education, 274 Conn. 92, 104, 874 A.2d 742, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1016, 126 S. Ct. 659, 163 L. Ed. 2d 526 (2005).

“Trial courts addressing motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to [Practice Book] § 10-31 (a) (1) may encounter different situations, depending on the status of the record in the case. As summarized by a federal court discussing motions brought pursuant to the analogous federal rule [i.e., Fed. R. Civ. P. (12) (b) (1)], [l]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts. . . . Different rules and procedures will apply, depending on the state of the record at the time the motion is filed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650-51, 974 A.2d 669 (2009).

“[I]f the complaint is supplemented by undisputed facts established by affidavits submitted in support of the motions to dismiss . . . the trial court, in determining the jurisdictional issue, may consider these supplementary undisputed facts and need not conclusively presume the validity of the allegations of the complaint.. . . [W]here a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 651-52.

In this case, the defendant questioned the plaintiff’s standing to bring the foreclosure action when it was commenced. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was inspired by the exhibits the plaintiff attached to its motion for summary judgment. Read’s affidavit attests to the plaintiff being the holder of the note, but it does not resolve the factual issue as to when the plaintiff acquired the note.[15] When the question regarding the plaintiff’s standing was raised, the court should have held a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff was the owner or holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. It is fundamental that appellate courts do not make findings of fact. Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction, 112 Conn. App. 675, 683 n.1, 963 A.2d 1077 (when record on appeal devoid of factual findings, improper for appellate court to make its own findings), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1221 (2009). The case, therefore, must be remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff was the owner or holder of the subject note at the time the action was commenced. See Cross v. Hudon, 27 Conn. App. 729, 734, 609 A.2d 1021 (1992) (court improperly failed to conduct evidentiary hearing because jurisdiction hinged on factual determination).

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

[*] The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.

[1] At trial, Robert Fishman, trustee for C & F Associates #2, also was a defendant, but he is not a party to this appeal. In this opinion, we refer to Bialobrzeski as the defendant.

[2] On March 2, 2009, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to substitute LaSalle Bank NA as trustee for Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates WMABS Series 2006-HE2 Trust as the plaintiff. We will refer to the plaintiff and the substitute plaintiff as the plaintiff for purposes of this opinion.

[3] Significantly, Read did not attest as to the date the plaintiff acquired the note.

[4] The copy of the note attached to the motion for summary judgment indicates that the debt is payable to Long Beach Mortgage Company and contains no endorsement. We note that in his answer to the complaint the defendant indicated that the note was held by Long Beach Mortgage Corporation.

[5] The assignment of mortgage attached to the motion for summary judgment states that Long Beach Mortgage Company assigned the mortgage to LaSalle Bank, National Association as Trustee for WMABS Series 2006-HE2 Trust on November 27, 2007.

[6] The defendant filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment on March 20, 2008. In his objection, the defendant stated that the assignment of the mortgage was dated twenty-seven days after the foreclosure action was commenced and therefore the plaintiff did not own the mortgage when the action was served. He attached a copy of the assignment of the mortgage to the objection to the motion for summary judgment.

[7] Copies of the assignment of the mortgage and the notice of intent to accelerate were attached to the proposed amended answer and special defenses.

[8] It appears that no action was taken on the defendant’s motion for permission to amend his answer and the objection thereto.

[9] No note or endorsement was attached to the plaintiff’s objection.

[10] The defendant attempted to file a request for production that complied with the rules of practice to obtain evidence that the plaintiff possessed the subject note on the date the action was commenced. The court agreed with the plaintiff that there was “no valid discovery request for the court to determine if it has been complied with by the plaintiff.”

[11] It is not clear to us how the motion to dismiss could have been moot, as subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and the court must address the issue before it may proceed with the case. See, e.g., O’Donnell v. Waterbury, 111 Conn. App. 1, 5, 959 A.2d 163, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 959, 961 A.2d 422 (2008).

[12] In its brief, the plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to preserve the issue presented or timely file his appeal because the appeal was not filed within twenty days of the date the court denied the motion to dismiss. Generally, the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory ruling, which is not an appealable final judgment. Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 645 n.5, 974 A.2d 669 (2009); but see Ware v. State, 118 Conn. App. 65, 79, 983 A.2d 853 (2009) (denial of motion to dismiss based on colorable claim of sovereign immunity immediately appealable). The defendant timely filed his appeal within twenty days of the court’s rendering the judgment of strict foreclosure. See Glenfed Mortgage Corp. v. Crowley, 61 Conn. App. 84, 88, 763 A.2d 19 (2000) (foreclosure appealable final judgment).

[13] Even if the defendant had claimed that the court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment, there is no record as to the basis of the court’s finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact, including the date the subject note was endorsed to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff owned the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action. The defendant did not file a motion for articulation. See Practice Book § 66-5.

[14] The defendant did not file any exhibits or transcripts of the proceedings in the trial court, if any. We do not know whether there was evidence in addition to the exhibits attached to the motion for summary judgment presented to the court at the time it considered the motion for summary judgment and the motion to dismiss. The defendant has not claimed that the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to determine its ownership of the note.

[15] On appeal, the plaintiff has argued, supported by citations to authority, that the holder of a note rightly may foreclose the mortgage. That argument, however, is beside the point. The relevant question is when the plaintiff became the holder of the subject note.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.SC. 1692, et seq.)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongful Foreclosure: Failure to Comply with Maryland Real Property Article, 7-105.1 0r 7.105.2

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) (MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW., 13-101, ET SED.)

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory Judgment (MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & Jud. Proc., 3-406)

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Respondeat Superior

EXHIBITS

MARYLAND FABRICATED HERRERA SIGNATURES

Exhibit re Notaries Johnson and Mendoza_ DECOMMISSION

[ipaper docId=41891432 access_key=key-118gymqg3lccjp49dzea height=600 width=600 /]

JUDITH ALEJANDRE and SERGIO TERRON, Appellants,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
f/k/a BANKER’S TRUST COMPANY, as TRUSTEE
and CUSTODIAN FOR NATIXIS 2007-HE2, Appellee.

No. 4D09-2280.

October 13, 2010 –

Joshua Bleil and Jessica Ticktin of The Ticktin Law Group, P.A.,
Deerfield Beach, for appellants.

No brief filed for appellee.

Judith Alejandre and Sergio Terron (Alejandre) appeal the summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Deutsche Bank Trust Company. Alejandre asserts that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment and that they had asserted affirmative defenses which were not denied by Deutsche, dealt with during the hearing on the motion for summary judgment or addressed in the final judgment. We agree and reverse.

Deutsche filed an amended complaint with the necessary documentation alleging that it was entitled to foreclose on the property in question. In Alejandre’s answer to the amended complaint, they asserted as affirmative defenses, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and unclean hands. In moving for summary judgment, Deutsche attached an affidavit stating that it had advanced to Alejandre, and is owed by Alejandre, the sum of $337,567.26. In its motion, however, it did not address any of the pending affirmative defenses. Nonetheless, the trial court granted Deutsche’s motion for summary judgment, prompting this appeal.

“The standard of review of the entry of summary judgment is de novo.” Craven v. TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd.,925 So.2d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Further, [t]he law is well settled in Florida that a party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought.” Id. at 479-80. “Summary judgment cannot be granted unless the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, conclusively show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Frost v. Regions Bank,15 So.3d 905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

When a party raises affirmative defenses, “[a] summary judgment should not be granted where there are issues of fact raised by [the] affirmative defense[s] which have not been effectively factually challenged and refuted.” Cufferi v. Royal Palm Dev. Co.,516 So.2d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Thus, “`[i]n order for a plaintiff . . . to obtain a summary judgment when the defendant asserts affirmative defenses, the plaintiff must either disprove those defenses by evidence or establish the legal insufficiency of the defenses.’” Id. (quoting Bunner v. Fla. Coast Bank of Coral Springs, N.A.,390 So.2d 126, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)). In such instances, “[t]he burden is on the plaintiff, as the moving party, to demonstrate that the defendant could not prevail.” Id.

In Frost, a bank/mortgagee filed a foreclosure claim against a mortgagor. In response to that complaint, the mortgagors filed an answer that contained the affirmative defense of notice and opportunity to cure. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition to that motion, the mortgagors did not file any papers or affidavits. At the hearing, the mortgagors contended that summary judgment was improper because the bank failed to address their affirmative defense. The trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Frost, 15 So. 3d at 906.

On appeal, this court reversed. We stated that the bank failed to refute the mortgagors’ affirmative defense of lack of notice and opportunity to cure. The bank failed to meet this requirement because “[n]othing in the bank’s complaint, motion for summary judgment, or affidavits indicate that the bank gave the [mortgagors] the notice which the mortgage required. The bank also did not establish that the [mortgagors’] lack of notice and opportunity to cure defense was legally insufficient.” Id. at 906. This Court held that “[b]ecause the bank did not meet its burden to refute the [mortgagors’] lack of notice and opportunity to cure defense, the bank is not entitled to final summary judgment of foreclosure.” Id. at 906-07.

In the instant case, as in Frost, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was improper. Here, as in Frost, Deutsche moved for summary judgment, but in that motion, it failed to address affirmative defenses raised by the mortgagor, Alejandre. Because Deutsche failed to address Alejandre’s affirmative defenses, it did not carry its burden on summary judgment. Therefore, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was erroneous. We do not pass upon the merits of the affirmative defenses, as that is a matter to be addressed in further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded for Further Proceedings Consistent with this Opinion.

TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

ALEJANDRE v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY

[ipaper docId=39355993 access_key=key-25v4r2e2o2xermvv7u0y height=600 width=600 /]

DinSFLA here: Notice the address Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. 1270 Northland Drive., Suite 200 Mendota Heights, MN 55120….THIS IS Lender Processing Services address in which I wrote about in this post below..

LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES (LPS) BUYING UP HOMES AT AUCTIONS? Take a look to see if this address is on your documents!

TO: Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Saxon”) Natalia Shasko, Corey M. Robertus, Tiffany & Bosco, Mark Bosco, Leonard J. McDonald, Jr.

YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to appear before this court on Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 1:30 p.m., U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 38 South Scott Avenue, Courtroom 446, Tucson, AZ 85701 and show cause, if any, why sanctions should not be imposed on you pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011, 3001, Local Bankruptcy Rules 4001(e) and 9011-1 and 11 U.S.C. § 105 for the following conduct relating to a proof of claim (“POC”) filed on November 28, 2008, and a Motion for Relief from Stay (“MRS”) filed on January 6, 2009:?

[ipaper docId=35634552 access_key=key-1v6f20bygqsiu37lkink height=600 width=600 /]

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge EILEEN W. HOLLOWELL knew exactly where this was going and put an immediate stop to it.

Deutsche not only created the Allonge after it filed its MRS and falsely represented that it was affixed to the Original, but it also relied on the LPA authorizing the transfer of the Note when substantially identical powers of attorney have been held to be ineffective in reported decisions involving Deutsche.

Deutsche, AHMSI and counsel should, however, treat this decision as a warning. If, in the future, the court is confronted with filings as deficient and incorrect as filed in this case, the court will issue an order to show cause and consider imposing sanctions including, but not limited to, an award of fees to debtors’ counsel for having to oppose motions filed without proper evidence or worse with improper evidence.

[ipaper docId=35633817 access_key=key-9b6oinutgrymchunjqw height=600 width=600 /]

Most of us can make the assumption that instead of Mr. Gaupp place we might as well enter MERS in his place right?

The real issue with the case as stated is that DBNT magically appears!  Where is the assignment from Ameriquest to *them*??  (I’d like to see the signatures on the note!)

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As Trustee of Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-X3, Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of September 1, 2004, Without Recourse, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID J. GAUPP, ALEXANDRA C. GAUPP, NATHAN PARTON and SPOUSE OF NATHAN PARTON, REBEKAH J. BARTON and SPOUSE OF REBEKAH J. BARTON, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and PARTIES IN POSSESSION,, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 0-272/09-0700.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Filed June 30, 2010.

Matthew E. Laughlin and Sarah K. Franklin of Davis Brown Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant.

Charles R. Hannan, IV, Council Bluffs, for appellees David J. Gaupp and Alexandra C. Gaupp.

Aaron W. Rodenburg, Council Bluffs, for appellees G&G Properties and Troy Granger.

Brian D. Nolan of Nolan, Olson & Stryker, P.C., L.L.O., Omaha, Nebraska, for appellees Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Nathan Parton, Spouse of Nathan Parton, Rebekah J. Barton, and Spouse of Rebekah J. Barton.

Alexandra Gaupp, Council Bluffs, appellee pro se.

David Gaupp, Council Avenue, appellee pro se.

Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Danilson, JJ.

VOGEL, P.J.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

In 2002, David Gaupp and Troy Granger formed a partnership, G & G Properties. On March 23, 2002, Gaupp and Granger purchased a duplex to use as a rental home for their partnership. Charles and Betty Bowes conveyed the property to “David J. Gaupp and Troy Granger” by warranty deed, which was recorded on April 9, 2002. On July 3, 2002, Gaupp, his wife, Alexandra Gaupp, and Granger conveyed the property to “G & G Properties” by warranty deed, which was recorded on September 24, 2002.

On December 8, 2003, Gaupp borrowed $162,000 from Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Ameriquest), which was evidenced by a promissory note and signed by Gaupp individually. In spite of the fact that Gaupp was not the titleholder of the property, the note purported to be secured by a mortgage on the property showing the borrower/mortgagor as “David J. Gaupp, married,” and bearing the signatures of “David J. Gaupp” and “Alexandra C. Gaupp,”^{[ 1 ]} but the acknowledgment is only as to “David J. Gaupp” and was notarized by a Nebraska notary public. The mortgage instrument was recorded on January 8, 2004. Ameriquest subsequently sold and assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank).

Although G & G Properties was the record titleholder of the property, the Gaupps and Granger subsequently executed two deeds regarding the property. On December 31, 2003, a “Corrected Warranty Deed” attempted to convey the property from “David J. Gaupp and Alexandra C. Gaupp” and “Troy S. Granger” to “David J. Gaupp and Alexandra C. Gaupp,” which was then recorded on January 8, 2004. On February 2, 2005, the Gaupps attempted to convey the real estate from “David J. Gaupp and Alexandra C. Gaupp” to “G & G Properties” by a quitclaim deed, which was recorded on July 28, 2005. In David Gaupp’s deposition testimony, he explained that these conveyances were done so that Granger’s name would not appear in the title, in an effort to keep Granger’s child support obligations from being a lien against the real estate.

In April 2006, G & G Properties agreed to sell the real estate. On May 5, 2006, “G & G Properties” conveyed the property to “Nathan D. Parton, a single person and Rebekah J. Barton, a single person” by warranty deed, which was recorded on May 19, 2006.^{[ 2 ]} In order to purchase the property, the Partons obtained a loan from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) that was secured by a mortgage on the real estate, which was recorded on May 19, 2006. G & G Properties received proceeds in the amount of $188,273.02 from the sale of the real estate.

At some point, Gaupp defaulted on the note held by Deutsche Bank. On January 30, 2007, Deutsche Bank filed a petition to foreclose its mortgage, seeking judgment in rem against the real estate in the amount of $154,147.19, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and interest, naming the Gaupps as defendants, parties in possession. On March 16, 2007, Deutsche Bank amended its petition to add the Partons and Wells Fargo as additional defendants. On November 1, 2007, the Partons filed a third-party complaint against G & G properties and Granger.

On October 21, 2008, the Partons and Wells Fargo filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that (1) the mortgage held by Deutsche Bank was invalid; and (2) the mortgage held by Deutsche Bank could not be foreclosed because the Partons were bona fide purchasers for value. On February 12, 2009, the district court issued its ruling finding that the Gaupps and Granger conveyed their interest in the property to G & G Properties on July 3, 2002, and when G & G Properties recorded the deed on September 24, 2002, it became the record titleholder. Gaupp did not have any interest in the property when he executed the mortgage in favor of Ameriquest/Deutsche Bank and after the mortgage was executed, Gaupp never obtained title to the property. G & G Properties did not convey the property to anyone prior to May 19, 2006, when the Partons purchased the property. As a result, the mortgage held by Deutsche Bank was “null and void.” The district court granted the Partons’ and Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition for foreclosure. Deutsche Bank appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; City of Johnston v. Christenson, 718 N.W.2d 290, 296 (Iowa 2006). Summary judgment should be granted when the entire record demonstrates there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3).

Thus, on review, we examine the record before the district court to decide whether any material fact is in dispute, and if not, whether the district court correctly applied the law. In considering the record, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.

Shriver v. City of Okoboji, 567 N.W.2d 397, 400 (Iowa 1997) (internal citations and quotation omitted).

III. Analysis.

Deutsche Bank asserts that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The parties do not dispute that at the time Gaupp executed the promissory note and mortgage, he did not hold title to the property and that G & G Properties was the record titleholder. Deutsche Bank cannot avoid the fundamental principal that a party that has no interest in a particular piece of real property cannot validly mortgage that property. See, e.g., Lee v. Lee, 207 Iowa 882, 885, 223 N.W. 888, 890 (Iowa 1929) (holding a mortgage invalid because the mortgagor had no interest in the property at the time the mortgage was given); 59 C.J.S. Mortgages § 111, at 102-03 (2009) (discussing that “[o]ne who has no ownership interest in property has no right to mortgage it” and if one does so, the mortgage creates no interest in the property). At the time Gaupp obtained the loan from Ameriquest, he did not have any interest in the property and therefore, the mortgage instrument attempting to secure the promissory note was invalid.

Deutsche Bank argues that Gaupp acquired title to the property on December 31, 2003, when the Gaupps and Granger executed the “Corrected Warranty Deed,” which Deutsche Bank further argues resulted in the mortgage becoming valid.^{[ 3 ]} However, this argument fails because Gaupp did not acquire an interest in the property when the “Corrected Warranty Deed” was executed on December 31, 2003. On July 3, 2002, the Gaupps and Granger conveyed the property to G & G Properties. After this conveyance, Gaupp had no interest in the property and could not convey the property to anyone. See Iowa Code § 557.3 (2007) (“Every conveyance of real estate passes all the interest of the grantor therein, unless a contrary intent can be reasonably inferred from the terms used.”). After the July 3, 2002 conveyance, only G & G Properties was able to convey title to the property. Any such attempt by Gaupp to do so would be and was invalid as he was no longer the titleholder. Therefore, the attempts by the Gaupps and Granger to convey the property on December 31, 2003, and February 2, 2005, were not valid conveyances.^{[ 4 ]} Additionally, because the invalid conveyances were outside the chain of title, they were stray deeds when recorded. See William Stoebuck and Dale Whitman, The Law of Property § 11.11 (3^rd ed. 2000) (“The term `chain of title’ is a shorthand way of describing the collection of documents which one can find by the use of the ordinary techniques of title search.”); 1 C.J.S. Abstracts of Title § 15, at 320 n.8 (2009) (“Instrument executed by owner [that] is recorded before acquisition or after relinquishment of title by owner is outside chain of title . . . .”).^{[ 5 ]} Title remained with G & G Properties from July 3, 2002 until May 5, 2006, when G & G Properties conveyed its solely held interest in the property to the Partons. Therefore the chain of title went from G & G Properties to the Partons. Gaupp did not have title to the property when he executed the mortgage instrument now held by Deutsche Bank nor did he subsequently obtain title. We affirm the district court’s findings and ruling.

AFFIRMED.

This copy provided by Leagle, Inc.

This is moot however, this is the response most lenders will file for a foreclosure complaint. Well written and good law firm. The Demurrer was helpful for filing a nearly new Second Amended Complaint. This was not heard due to the filing of the second complaint prior to the hearing date. there are cases as addendum which will be filed separately.

[scribd id=30447221 key=key-2ihkuw6y739hpwqwfuv5 mode=list]

Plaintiff is having difficulty in acquiring any documents with the discovery process. There is a Evidence Hearing on 4-26-10. Notice refers to attached letter from Defedants counsel.

Lets make this one FAMOUS!

[scribd id=30416796 key=key-cep46o3kgbqa3o4r8xs mode=list]