Mortgageit Mortgage Loan Trust v. Ehrismann

************************************************
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.
************************************************

Mortgageit Mortgage Loan Trust v. Ehrismann
MORTGAGEIT MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST,
TRUSTEE v. JEFFREY M.
EHRISMANN ET AL.
(AC 48817)
Alvord, Moll and Wilson, Js.
Syllabus
The defendant appealed from the summary judgment rendered for the plain-
tiff on its foreclosure complaint as to liability only and on the defendant’s
counterclaim. After the defendant filed his appeal with this court, this court
granted in part the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final
judgment. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court
erred in rendering summary judgment for the plaintiff on the count of his
counterclaim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. Held:
This court declined to review the defendant’s claims that the trial court
improperly rendered summary judgment for the plaintiff on his special
defenses of unclean hands and estoppel and on the complaint as to liability
only, as those claims were encompassed by that portion of the defendant’s
appeal that previously was dismissed for lack of a final judgment.
This court declined to review the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred
in rendering summary judgment with respect to the count of his counter-
claim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, as the claim was
inadequately briefed.
Argued May 19—officially released July 7, 2026
Procedural History
Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property,
and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in
the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the
defendant Matthew P. Ehrismann et al. were defaulted
for failure to appear and the defendant Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation was defaulted for failure to plead;
thereafter, the named defendant filed a counterclaim;
subsequently, the court, Hon. Charles T. Lee, judge trial
referee, rendered summary judgment for the plaintiff
on the complaint as to liability only and on the counter-
claim, and the named defendant appealed to this court;

Mortgageit Mortgage Loan Trust v. Ehrismann
thereafter, this court granted in part the motion to dis-
miss filed by the plaintiff. Affirmed.
Stephen E. Nevas, for the appellant (named defendant).
Jeffrey M. Knickerbocker, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion
MOLL, J. The defendant Jeffrey M. Ehrismann, as heir
and/or beneficiary of Anthony W. Ehrismann,1 appeals
from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the
plaintiff, Mortgageit Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-1, U.S. Bank
National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest
to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee,
on the plaintiff’s foreclosure complaint and on the defen-
dant’s counterclaim. Specifically, the defendant claims
on appeal that the trial court erred in rendering summary
judgment in the plaintiff’s favor with respect to (1) the
defendant’s special defense of unclean hands, (2) the
defendant’s special defense of estoppel, (3) the plaintiff’s
foreclosure complaint as to liability only, and (4) count
four of the defendant’s counterclaim, which alleged a
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
With respect to the defendant’s first three claims, we
decline to review them because they are encompassed by
that portion of the defendant’s appeal that previously
was dismissed for lack of a final judgment. With respect
to the defendant’s fourth claim, we reject the claim as
inadequately briefed and affirm the summary judgment
insofar as it was rendered in favor of the plaintiff on the
defendant’s counterclaim.
1The complaint also named as defendants the Federal Deposit Insur-
ance Corporation, as receiver for Indymac Federal Bank, FSB, Matthew
P. Ehrismann, as heir and/or beneficiary of Anthony W. Ehrismann,
Peter J. Ehrismann, as heir and/or beneficiary of Anthony W. Ehris-
mann, the Department of Revenue Services, and the Office of Probate
Administration, but those parties were defaulted either for failure to
appear or for failure to plead and are not participating in this appeal.
For the sake of clarity, we refer to Jeffrey M. Ehrismann, as heir and/
or beneficiary of Anthony W. Ehrismann, as the defendant.

Mortgageit Mortgage Loan Trust v. Ehrismann
By way of brief background, in September 2022, the
plaintiff commenced this residential foreclosure action
against, among others, the defendant. In his answer to
the plaintiff’s one count complaint sounding in fore-
closure, the defendant asserted three special defenses,
namely, bankruptcy discharge, equitable estoppel, and
unclean hands, as well as a four count counterclaim
alleging, inter alia, a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The special defenses and counterclaim
were based on notices, included in monthly mortgage
billing statements that the plaintiff, its agent, or its
predecessor in interest sent the defendant (or previously
the original borrower and decedent, Anthony W. Ehris-
mann) for several years, which stated the following: “Our
records show that either you are a debtor in bankruptcy or
you discharged personal liability for your mortgage loan
in bankruptcy. We are sending this statement to you for
informational and compliance purposes only. It is not an
attempt to collect a debt against you. If you want to stop
receiving statements, write to us.” (Emphasis omitted.)
On June 18, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for sum-
mary judgment as to liability only on its foreclosure
claim, as well as the defendant’s special defenses and
counterclaim. Over the defendant’s objection, on May
27, 2025, the trial court, Hon. Charles T. Lee, judge trial
referee, granted the plaintiff’s motion in its entirety,
rendering summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff
on the foreclosure complaint as to liability only, the spe-
cial defenses, and the counterclaim. The present appeal
followed.
On June 11, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion to dis-
miss the appeal on the grounds that it is, at least in
part, not taken from a final judgment and is frivolous
and dilatory. On June 23, 2025, the defendant filed an
opposition to the motion. On July 23, 2025, this court
ordered the motion to dismiss “granted, in part, in that
the appeal is dismissed for lack of a final judgment on

Mortgageit Mortgage Loan Trust v. Ehrismann
the foreclosure complaint2 . . . and denied, in part, as to
the summary judgment rendered in favor of the plain-
tiff on the defendant’s counterclaim. See Practice Book
§ 61-2.” (Citation omitted; footnote added.)
On April 8, 2026, the trial court, Hon. Robert L. Genu-
ario, judge trial referee, rendered a judgment of strict
foreclosure and determined the amount of the debt. On
April 14, 2026, the defendant filed in this court a motion
for permission to amend his appeal to include the judg-
ment of strict foreclosure. On April 28, 2026, this court
denied the motion and “further ordered, sua sponte,
that the defendant may file a new appeal from the April
8, 2026 judgment on or before May 8, 2026,” which the
defendant did on May 4, 2026. See Mortgageit Mortgage
Loan Trust v. Ehrismann, Connecticut Appellate Court,
Docket No. AC 49910 (filed May 4, 2026).
With respect to the defendant’s first three claims on
appeal, as a result of this court’s dismissal, in part, of
the defendant’s original appeal, the trial court’s render-
ing of summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s
foreclosure claim and the defendant’s special defenses is
no longer encompassed by the present appeal. Because
the trial court has now rendered a final judgment on
the foreclosure complaint, the defendant will have the
opportunity to obtain appellate review relating thereto
in his newly filed appeal. See id.
With respect to the defendant’s fourth claim on appeal
relating to the fourth count of his counterclaim, we
decline to address it because, as presented in two sen-
tences, it is inadequately briefed. See Robb v. Connecticut
Board of Veterinary Medicine, 204 Conn. App. 595, 611,
2The defendant seeks to have us revisit our dismissal, in part, of this
appeal on the basis of the lack of a final judgment on the foreclosure
complaint. Putting aside that the proper procedure would have been for
the defendant to file a motion to reconsider, we stand on our prior deci-
sion, as it is well settled that “a judgment of foreclosure is not a final
judgment until the trial court determines the method of foreclosure and
the amount of the debt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bombero
v. Bombero, 160 Conn. App. 118, 126 n.9, 125 A.3d 229 (2015).

Mortgageit Mortgage Loan Trust v. Ehrismann
254 A.3d 915 (“We repeatedly have stated that [w]e are
not required to review issues that have been improperly
presented to this court through an inadequate brief. . . .
Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required
in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief
the issue properly. . . . [F]or this court judiciously and
efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal . . .
the parties must clearly and fully set forth their argu-
ments in their briefs. . . . The parties may not merely
cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship
between the facts of the case and the law cited.” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 338 Conn. 911,
259 A.3d 654 (2021).
The judgment with respect to the defendant’s coun-
terclaim is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.