Peter Robert Meggers

Practice Details

• Firm Information
  Position

  Associate

  Firm Name

  Halloran & Sage LLP
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  Rep Matters: Appellate Court Delivers Important Win to Foreclosing Lenders
  In a significant victory for financial institutions
  foreclosing entities in general, the Connecticut Appellate Court recently upheld a trial court ruling ordering the payment of property tax
  insurance payments from the borrowers during the pendency of the appeal of a foreclosure action. In JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Roger Essaghof, et al., AC38736 (Conn. App. 2017), the Appellate Court, in reviewing the proceedings of a multi-day bench trial in the Stamford Superior Court, found that not only had the trial court not erred in its decision in favor of the Bank as to foreclosure
  the borrower's special defenses, but further that it could not conceive of any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court... further finding that the court ...underst
  ably was concerned that, absent an order requiring the defendants to pay for their own property taxes
  homeowner's insurance, they would experience a windfall because they would be allowed to live on their property for free at the plaintiff's expense until the conclusion of the foreclosure proceedings. Attorney Brian D. Rich argued the appeal
  was assisted on the brief by Attorney Peter R. Meggers . Both are members of the Banking, Foreclosure
  Lender Liability Practice Group.
  CT Appellate Court Overturns Dismissal in Foreclosure Case
  Bolsters Law Relating to Requirements of Legal St
  ing
  In Deustche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee, v. Elizabeth Torres, the Connecticut Appellate Court dealt another blow to the attempts of borrowers to tighten the requirements of legal st
  ing for a foreclosure action. In a decision officially released on March 25, 2014, the Appellate Court made clear that that a lender's mere allegation of holder status, together with production of the original note, was sufficient to constitute legal st
  ing in the absence of any evidence presented to the contrary
  in accord with the well-established line of Connecticut caselaw culminating in RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Anna Miller , 303 Conn. 224 (2011). While the decision does not appear to fundamentally alter the status of Connecticut law, its release more than two years after RMS seems to be another sign of the strength
  clarity of Connecticut's treatment of these issues.