Advance Release Opinions – November 24

Connecticut Appellate Court

The Appellate Court advance released opinions in the areas of breach of contract (involving a collective bargaining agreement) and foreclosure, which I review below. The Court also advance released opinions in three habeas matters and three criminal matters, which I do not review.

Breach of Contract

Rosenthal v. Bloomfield – Retired cops claimed that Town breached collective bargaining agreement because new health insurance plan, which increased co-pays, was not “comparable”to old plan. Trial court dismissed claim for failure to make out a prima facie case. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that there was no evidence of a breach. Though the new plan increased co-pays, it did so only for some services, while lowering or eliminating them for others. So, as a whole, the new plan was comparable to the old plan.

Foreclosure

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford – Not to be confused with the 2013 Appellate Court decision involving the same parties and mortgage, in this one the borrower claimed that the United States Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (135 S. Ct. 790) resuscitated his TILA-rescission defense and that the substituted plaintiff lacked standing because it never had any legal existence. Jesinoski confirms that under TILA a borrower need only mail a rescission notice within three years of consummating the loan transaction – the borrower does not also have to start a lawsuit to confirm the rescission within that same three year period. Ford claimed that under Jesinoski the foreclosure action could not proceed because he had rescinded the loan by mailing a notice within the three year period. The Appellate Court rejected this claim, concluding that Jesinoski merely confirms that mailing is the only required mechanism for providing notice of a rescission; it does not say that timely mailing the notice is itself a rescission. I’m not so sure that I agree with that but there you have it. The Appellate Court also rejected Ford’s lack of standing claim, finding that Ford never suggested any evidence that the substituted plaintiff had no legal existence.