Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bacon, No. Cv92 029 62 73s (Aug. 23, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bacon, No. Cv92 029 62 73s (Aug. 23, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8384

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 23, 1994

DocketNo. CV92 029 62 73S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8384 (Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bacon, No. Cv92 029 62 73s (Aug. 23, 1994)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bacon, No. Cv92 029 62 73s (Aug. 23, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8384 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE In this foreclosure action, the proponent of this Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff is APX Mortgage Services, Inc.

The motion alleges that the current plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for Mechanics and Farmers Savings Bank sold the note and mortgage to South Star Management Company, Inc. South Star then sold the note and mortgage to National Housing Exchange, Inc.

National has now contracted with APX to be its "servicer . . . of the Mortgage Documents." Evidently APX is not an owner of any of the paper, giving it an interest in the property. See e.g., Primerica v. Planning and Zoning Commission,211 Conn. 85 (1989). The proposed party is not in any trust relationship with the owner and holder of the paper. See e.g.,Investors Mortgage Co. v. Rodia, 31 Conn. App. 476 (1993). It is not a holder, in due course or otherwise, of the negotiable instrument. Thus, it has no interest in this controversy that would require or allow it to become a party plaintiff. Pollio v.Conservation Commission, 32 Conn. App. 109 (1993).

The Motion to Substitute APX as a party plaintiff is denied.

PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE In this foreclosure action, the proponent of this Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff is APX Mortgage Services, Inc.

The motion alleges that the current plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for Mechanics and Farmers Savings Bank sold the note and mortgage to South Star Management Company, Inc. South Star then sold the note and mortgage to National Housing Exchange, Inc.

National has now contracted with APX to be its "servicer . . . of the Mortgage Documents." Evidently APX is not an owner of any of the paper, giving it an interest in the property. See e.g., Primerica v. Planning and Zoning Commission,211 Conn. 85 (1989). The proposed party is not in any trust relationship with the owner and holder of the paper. See e.g.,Investors Mortgage Co. v. Rodia, 31 Conn. App. 476 (1993). It is not a holder, in due course or otherwise, of the negotiable instrument. Thus, it has no interest in this controversy that would require or allow it to become a party plaintiff. Pollio v.Conservation Commission, 32 Conn. App. 109 (1993).

The Motion to Substitute APX as a party plaintiff is denied.

PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-deposit-ins-corp-v-bacon-no-cv92-029-62-73s-aug-23-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack