The Connecticut Appellate Court recently upheld a foreclosure judgment against Johnny Ray Moore, allowing the Bank of New York Mellon to proceed with the sale of his property. The court ruled that the bank had the right to enforce the mortgage and collect the debt owed by Moore. This decision, officially released on August 4, 2026, affects not only Moore but also sets a precedent for similar foreclosure cases in Connecticut.
The case, Bank of New York Mellon v. Moore (AC48062), began when the bank filed a lawsuit in 2018 to foreclose on a mortgage associated with a promissory note for $248,000, which Moore had taken out in 2006. The dispute arose over whether the bank was the rightful holder of the promissory note and whether it had followed proper procedures in notifying Moore of his default.
Moore, who represented himself in court, argued that the bank did not have standing to foreclose because it failed to prove it was the holder of the note. He also claimed that the bank violated an automatic bankruptcy stay by sending him a default notice while he was undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. The trial court, however, found in favor of the bank, stating that it had presented sufficient evidence to establish its ownership of the note.
The court's ruling was based on the bank's production of the promissory note, which was endorsed in blank. This, the court stated, constituted prima facie evidence that the bank was the holder of the note prior to the initiation of the foreclosure action. The court noted, "The plaintiff’s production of the note, endorsed in blank, constituted prima facie evidence that it was the holder of the note prior to the commencement of the action." This finding allowed the bank to proceed with the foreclosure.
In addition to the standing issue, Moore raised several other claims during the appeal. He contended that the bank had not properly notified him of his default and that there was a material variance between the allegations in the complaint and the evidence presented at trial. However, the court found that these claims were inadequately briefed and declined to review them.
The court also addressed Moore's argument regarding the default notice. While he argued that the notice violated the automatic bankruptcy stay, the court deemed this claim abandoned due to inadequate briefing. The court emphasized that self-represented litigants must still comply with procedural rules and cannot expect leniency in legal arguments.
As for the calculation of the debt owed by Moore, the court upheld the trial court's findings, stating that the calculation was not clearly erroneous. The trial court determined that Moore owed $234,457.39 to the bank, factoring in previous debt forgiveness and other related costs.
The ruling has significant implications for homeowners facing foreclosure in Connecticut. It reinforces the principle that a bank can establish its standing in foreclosure cases by producing a properly endorsed note. Additionally, the decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly for self-represented litigants.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether Moore will seek further legal recourse. The court's ruling can potentially be appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, but details regarding any such plans were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence future foreclosure actions and the standards for evidence required from banks in similar situations.