Manning v. Feltman — 3/31/2014

The plaintiff in this foreclosure action…appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants…. The court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the foreclosure action after determining that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to list the note and mortgage deed at issue in his foreclosure complaint as an asset in his 1995 bankruptcy petition. The court ruled that the note and mortgage remain the property of the bankruptcy estate, not the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss because (1) the court should have abstained from deciding bankruptcy law issues, stayed the case, and referred such issues to the Bankruptcy Court; (2) the defendants lacked standing to raise bankruptcy issues; and (3) the court should have substituted the bankruptcy trustee as a party plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AC35482

Read Opinion

Read Concurrence

Posted in: Appellate, Concurrence, Connecticut, Foreclosure Decisions, State

Leave a Comment (0) ↓