Preliminary Statement of Issues for Foreclosure Appeal to Appellate Court

7/27/2019 Preliminary Statement of Issues for Foreclosure Appeal to Appellate Court

1/4

DOCKET # FST-CV-13-6017689-S : APPELLATE COURT

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. : STATE OF CONNECTICUTV.

PARTCH, DOROTHY S., ET AL. : OCTOBER 10, 2013

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Proposed Intervening Defendant-Appellant Marjorie Partch presents the following issues forthis 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 Equitable

Powers 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 orclaims an interestin 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 INTERESTin the underlying (andundervalued) property located at 20 Devils Garden Road, Norwalk, CT 06854 (theProperty). Said interestis substantiated by the following three points:

(a) Referenced in its entirety as Exhibit B to Appellants (8/19/13) Motion to Reargue(Motion #122) is a recent Decision regarding a Tort Complaint concerning her mothersFraudulently 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 Appellants 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 mothers 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


2/4

(b) Appellants eligibility to transfer title to the Property to her own name underthe Federal Medicaid Rules concerning the Caregivers 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 ones 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 interestin 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

Appellees 7/26/13 (#117) Objection to Appellants Motion for Inclusion (#115) as thefinal word. This assumption appears to be the third error in the trial courts 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 interestin 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 1st Atlantic Mortgage, and not from Flagstar Bank, which took overthe original loan in 2006. Appellant offers these queries as reasons forher Inclusion.

(b) In her Proposed Objection (Motion #119) to Plaintiffs Misleading Federal LossMitigation Programs Affidavit (Entry #104), Appellant presents evidence of DefendantDorothy S. Partchs Application for a Government-Sponsored Loan Modification,initiated in August 2012, in direct opposition to Plaintiff-Appellees false statements thatshe made no such Application, and was unresponsive to Plaintiff-Appellees 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


3/4

(d) At Oral Reargument to Be Made a Party Defendant (9/9/13), Appellant presentedrecently discovered newevidence 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), SuperiorCourt, 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 Appellants signature was binding, as Attorney-in-Fact forDorothy S. Partch; i.e., admittingAppellants 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 Appellants initial Motion (#115).

(3) While the Honorable Kevin Tierney did laughingly acknowledge the absurdity ofWilton Meadows denial of Appellants authority [see 9/9/13 Transcript: Its 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 Appellants 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 Caputosparticipation 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-Appellees 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 Appellants 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. Appellants comparisonin her oral argument on 9/9/13 to the potential fiduciary and clean hands issues in Willowv. 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


4/4

(6) Through these arguments and related litigations, Appellant is bringing grave ethicalconsiderations to the attention of multiple Courts. Appellant moves that this trial court erredin its discretion to exclude her from participating in the present Foreclosure proceeding, inwhich she has a clear and demonstrable interest, and to which she can make necessarycontributions toward the proper administration of Justice, and preventing further Injustice

against her beleaguered family, namely, the irreversible loss of their shared home. As theonly party (or non-party) raising the preceding questions, Proposed Intervening Defendant-Appellant should be granted the opportunity and platform for Justice to seek their answers,and to protect her claim to her interest. While she expects to ultimately prevail in thesevarious related concurrent litigations, Appellant is also striving to preserve the Property forher mothers immediate return to her beloved home of more than 40 years. Any Mortgagefound to be valid in these proceedings could easily be reinstated, with payments guaran-teed by Defendant Dorothy S. Partchs State Pension and Social Security benefits.

Respectfully submitted,

PROPOSED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT MARJORIE PARTCH

BY: ____________________________________Marjorie PartchSelf-Represented

c/o David Vita, Director of Social JusticeThe Unitarian Church in Westport10 Lyons Plains RoadWestport, CT 06880203.912.3528 / 203.227.7205, x 14

[email protected]

4
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Preliminary Statement of Issues for Foreclosure Appeal to Appellate Court