Legal Opinion

Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Condron

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided April 24, 2018No. AC38934PublishedCited by 15 opinions

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

  1. Jones v. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  2. State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
  3. Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
  4. Swenson v. SawoskaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  5. Fidelity Bank v. KreniskyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. FitzpatrickConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
  2. Morris v. Wilmington Savings Fund SocietyDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2018
  3. Hudson City Savings Bank v. HellmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
  4. Pennymac Corp. v. TarziaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2022
  5. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. RoongseangAppellate Court of Illinois · 2020

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API