Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Preliminary Statement of Issues for Foreclosure Appeal to Appellate Court

Preliminary Statement of Issues for Foreclosure Appeal to Appellate Court

Ratings: (0)|Views: 138|Likes:
Published by Marjorie Partch
It was quite a challenge to try to distill everything down into this statement, so that it is succinct enough for its purpose while not leaving anything out. And I felt the need to CLARIFY things that seemed to be missed by the trial court.

I hope that they can follow the bounding ball from the Probate debacle to the present collateral damage, and not dismiss the origins of this situation as irrelevant.

My mother was very engaged when I showed her drafts of this, and told her that I realized I couldn't start working on this shorter document without drafting the brief at the same time ~ I had to write long first, and then extract and cut. There was a moment when I felt like we were really talking the way we used to. My parents & I were always one another's best editors ...

She cried. I'm sure the idea that we are facing foreclosure is horrifying enough for her ~ especially since it is part of the fallout of her imprisonment. But I thought it was also gratitude that I have the wherewithal to even attempt this. What about the families who don't have a writer, much less a lawyer, in the family ???

I am very grateful to the Law Library in Stamford, and their excellent books and librarians. They go a long way toward leveling the playing field.
It was quite a challenge to try to distill everything down into this statement, so that it is succinct enough for its purpose while not leaving anything out. And I felt the need to CLARIFY things that seemed to be missed by the trial court.

I hope that they can follow the bounding ball from the Probate debacle to the present collateral damage, and not dismiss the origins of this situation as irrelevant.

My mother was very engaged when I showed her drafts of this, and told her that I realized I couldn't start working on this shorter document without drafting the brief at the same time ~ I had to write long first, and then extract and cut. There was a moment when I felt like we were really talking the way we used to. My parents & I were always one another's best editors ...

She cried. I'm sure the idea that we are facing foreclosure is horrifying enough for her ~ especially since it is part of the fallout of her imprisonment. But I thought it was also gratitude that I have the wherewithal to even attempt this. What about the families who don't have a writer, much less a lawyer, in the family ???

I am very grateful to the Law Library in Stamford, and their excellent books and librarians. They go a long way toward leveling the playing field.

More info:

Published by: Marjorie Partch on Oct 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/21/2013

pdf

text

original

 
DOCKET # FST-CV-13-6017689-S: APPELLATE COURTCITIMORTGAGE, INC.: STATE OF CONNECTICUTV.PARTCH, DOROTHY S., ET AL.: OCTOBER 10, 2013PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Proposed Intervening Defendant-Appellant Marjorie Partch presents the following issues for this appeal of the Superior Court Decision to Deny her Motion to Be Made a Party Defend-ant in the above-captioned Foreclosure: Whether the trial court gave sufficient considera-tion to the facts, new evidence, and arguments qualifying her for Inclusion:Under both tests provided in C.G.S. § 52-102, Appellant seeks to invoke the EquitablePowers of the Courts, given all the still-pending related litigations involving still-emergingevidence of Fraud leading up to and possibly including the present Foreclosure proceeding:“Upon motion made by any party or nonparty to a civil action …
(1)
may be made aparty by the court if that person has or 
claims an interest 
in the controversy, or any partthereof, adverse to the plaintiff;
OR
 
(2)
shall be made a party by the court if that personis
necessary for a complete determination
or settlement of any question involved therein… shall be made a defendant in the controversy,” emphasis added.
The First Test for Inclusion:(1)
Appellant refers to her colorable
CLAIM TO AN INTEREST 
in the underlying (andundervalued) property located at 20 Devil’s Garden Road, Norwalk, CT 06854 (“theProperty”). Said
interest 
is substantiated by the following three points:
(a)
Referenced in its entirety as “Exhibit B” to Appellant’s (8/19/13) Motion to Reargue(Motion #122) is a recent Decision regarding a Tort Complaint concerning her mother’sFraudulently Procured Conservatorship:
Marjorie Partch
v.
Wilton Meadows HealthcareCorp.
Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV 12-6029435 (August 1, 2013) (00 Conn. L. Rptr. 00). The Bridgeport Superior Courtconcludes in its 18-page Memorandum, which upholds all five of Appellant’s Counts,including the violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act [CUTPA],C.G.S. § 420-110a et seq. (Discovery is certain to expand this scope of Investigation):
“Finally, just because the plaintiff [Marjorie Partch] has not alleged that shewas a fee holder or lease holder of her mother’s personal residence does notrequire the court to conclude that the plaintiff does not possess a redressableinterest in the residence…. Thus, for the purposes of the present motion, theplaintiff can claim a legally redressable injury in the form of eviction from theresidence” [pp. 16-17].
1
 
(b)
Appellant’s eligibility to transfer title to the Property to her own name under the
Federal Medicaid Rules concerning the “Caregiver’s Exception”
(to theproperty-transfer look-back period) is a second justification. This Federal Law[42 U.S.C.A. § 1396p(c)(2)(A)(iv); U.P.M. § 3029 A.1.e.] is an appropriate Standard of Review in the present case: After two years of caring for one’s parent at home, an adultchild is entitled to ownership of the Property. Appellant cared for her mother at homefor more than six years. How can Appellant not have an
interest 
in the Property ?
(c)
This rightful interest was superseded by the Fraudulently Procured Conservatorshipof Defendant Dorothy S. Partch – the subject of various pending litigations. Accordingly,it is premature to consider the 2011 Probate Decree to Quiet Title presented in Appellee’s 7/26/13 (#117) Objection to Appellant’s Motion for Inclusion (#115) as the“final word.” This assumption appears to be the third error in the trial court’s Decision.
The Second Test for Inclusion:(2)
Under the Statute, and Connecticut Practice Book § 9-18, in addition to her claims toa “direct and substantial
interest” 
in the Property, Appellant shows that her participation inthe present action is necessary for the Courts to make a “complete determination” of theissues, for several additional reasons, including but not limited to the following:
(a)
If Appellant is permitted Discovery, even more legitimate questions will come tolight, given her unique knowledge, documentation, and her Proposed Interrogatories(#120) regarding the ownership and transfer history of the Mortgage in question. Shehas serious questions regarding the claimed 2012 conveyance to Citimortgage –purportedly from 1
st
Atlantic Mortgage, and not from Flagstar Bank, which took over the original loan in 2006. Appellant offers these queries as
reasons for 
her Inclusion.
(b)
In her Proposed Objection (Motion #119) to Plaintiff’s Misleading Federal LossMitigation Programs Affidavit (Entry #104), Appellant presents evidence of DefendantDorothy S. Partch’s Application for a Government-Sponsored Loan Modification,initiated in August 2012, in direct opposition to Plaintiff-Appellee’s false statements thatshe made no such Application, and was unresponsive to Plaintiff-Appellee’s attempts toextend this opportunity. These misrepresentations could potentially rush the casetoward Judgment were it not for the Intervention of the Proposed Defendant-Appellant.Neither Conservator who has filed an Appearance has raised this Objection.
(c)
As Appellant alerted the trial court in Paragraph 3 of her original (7/17/13) Motion(#115), the Property is being grossly undervalued (by more than $200,000). Even beingstaged to look like a tear-down, as the Property currently is, professionally preparedMarket Comparisons are coming in at a substantially higher price point. This indicatessignificant equity established in the Property, currently being disregarded;
that is to say:
there are 40 years of equity hidden in the Property, which Appellant is uniquelypositioned, motivated, and entitled to protect.
2
 
(d)
At Oral Reargument to Be Made a Party Defendant (9/9/13), Appellant presentedrecently discovered
new 
 
evidence
of the deliberately perpetrated Fraud against bothPartch Defendants. This newly discovered evidence also confirms the complicity of theformer Conservator for Defendant Dorothy S. Partch, a real estate attorney whonominally represented the Defendant in the following apparently collusive suit in 2011.This suit was brought by Wilton Meadows at the same time as a 2011 Probate Decreeto sell the Property under a “short sale” agreement also simultaneously negotiated withPlaintiff-Appellee; again, for a greatly reduced price. Appellant appealed that Decreeas a recognized Aggrieved Party, under C.G.S. § 45a-186, and would do so again:
Wilton Meadows
v.
Dorothy S. Partch (Conservator: Matthew A. Caputo)
, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV 11-5029523-S (June 2,2011) (00 Conn. L. Rptr. 00). Entry No. 100.37 on this Docket is an Affidavit by WiltonMeadows asserting that Appellant’s signature was binding, as “Attorney-in-Fact” for Dorothy S. Partch;
i.e., admitting 
 Appellant’s improperly superseded authority, whichWilton Meadows has persistently denied, and/or denied knowledge about, in every other Court. Note Wilton Meadows’ Admissions documents also endorsing said authority, co-signed by Appellant and Wilton Meadows’ Director of Admissions
on April 25, 2010.
For example, compare Wilton Meadows’ (7/8/10) Application for Involuntary Conser-vatorship, “Exhibit F” to Appellant’s initial Motion (#115).
(3)
While the Honorable Kevin Tierney did laughingly acknowledge the absurdity of Wilton Meadows’ denial of Appellant’s authority [see 9/9/13 Transcript: “It’s all over theplace,” he exclaimed], he did not seem to fully appreciate the seriousness of the Fraud,or its impact; or its relevance to the present case; or to Appellant’s rightful position; or theresultant implications regarding further potential improprieties in the instant Foreclosureproceeding, initiated under the tenure of the Predecessor Conservator, Matthew A. Caputo(“Caputo”) – and for which Caputo filed an Appearance on April 16, 2013.
(4)
At oral argument (9/9/13), Appellant attempted to further demonstrate Caputo’sparticipation in the ongoing Fraud against both Partch Defendants, by presenting a(3/22/13) Motion that Caputo submitted to the Probate Court a mere four days before thepresent Foreclosure action. However, the trial court upheld Plaintiff-Appellee’s Objection.
(5)
These items of newly discovered and newly relevant evidence have since been, andwill be, filed as matters of Public Record in other related proceedings in other Courts. Theyare extremely relevant to the present case. On 9/25/13, Appellant also filed an Objection tothe Appointment of yet another (third) Conservator for her mother, while again requestingher own Appointment, which would absolutely assure her standing in the present case. Itseemed that Appellant’s underlying point driving her questions regarding the actions of theformer Conservator in his joint dealings with Plaintiff-Appellee was entirely lost on the trialcourt; or that she lacked the standing to raise her questions. Appellant’s comparisonin her oral argument on 9/9/13 to the potential fiduciary and “clean hands” issues in
Willow 
 v.
Grencom,
2000 Ct. Sup. 828 [Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk atStamford, Docket No. CV-95-0146003-S (Jan. 19, 2000)] seemed to fall on deaf ears.
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->