Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Schulz

── Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Schulz ── Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut Date: June 02, 2026 Author: Mullins Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Schulz WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, TRUSTEE v. ISANDRA L. SCHULZ ET AL. (SC 21065) Mullins, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Ecker, Alexander, Dannehy and Bright, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the named defendant, S. S had executed a promissory note that was secured by the mortgage in favor of a predecessor bank. After S defaulted, another bank, B Co., became the holder of the note and the assignee of the mortgage. The original note, however, was lost while in the custody of B Co.’s loan servicer, C Co. Thereafter, B Co. assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff. After the plaintiff commenced the present foreclosure action, it filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability with attached exhibits, including sworn affidavits executed on behalf of C Co. by three of its employees, H, B, and G. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure. S appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On the granting of certification, S appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s secondary evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to prove that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the plaintiff’s ownership of the debt underlying the mortgage. Held: The Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the judgment of strict foreclosure, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to its ownership of the debt underlying the mortgage, and, accordingly, the Appellate Court’s judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded with direction to reverse the trial court’s judg- ment of strict foreclosure and for further proceedings. When a promissory note has been lost or misplaced, the plaintiff’s ownership of the debt underlying the mortgage, which must be established prior to fore- closure, may be established through secondary evidence, such as an affidavit. Pursuant to the rules of practice (§ 17-46) and Connecticut case law, an affidavit submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment must be made on the basis of personal knowledge, a corporate affiant may obtain such personal knowledge through a review of business records, and, for the affidavit to constitute competent evidence, the aff