Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Condron
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtElgo, J.
The defendants, Karen Condron and James L. Condron, 1 appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. 2 On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly rendered judgment of strict foreclosure because (1) the plaintiff failed to satisfy a contractual condition precedent to foreclosure, namely, compliance with the requirement of notification by mail specified in the mortgage deed; 3 (2) the plaintiff failed to satisfy a statutory condition precedent, as required by the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Jones v. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Swenson v. SawoskaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Fidelity Bank v. KreniskyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. FitzpatrickConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
- Morris v. Wilmington Savings Fund SocietyDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2018
- Hudson City Savings Bank v. HellmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
- Pennymac Corp. v. TarziaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2022
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. RoongseangAppellate Court of Illinois · 2020
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.