DOCKET NO. NNH-CV19-6097924-S
`
`FREEDOM MORTGAGE
`CORPORATION
`
`V.
`
`CHRISTOPHER MANZI, ET AL.
`
`—;
`
`:
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`NEW HAVEN
`
`AT NEW HAVEN
`
`APRIL 15, 2024
`
`ANSWER, SPECIAL DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM
`
`ANSWER
`
`1.
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi,lacks sufficient knowledge and leaves the
`
`Plaintiff to its proof.
`
`2.
`
`3,
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, lacks sufficient knowledge and leaves the
`
`Plaintiff to its proof.
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, lacks sufficient knowledge and leaves the
`
`Plaintiff to its proof.
`
`4,
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, lacks sufficient knowledge and leaves the
`
`Plaintiffto its proof.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, lacks sufficient knowledge and leaves the
`
`Plaintiff to its proof as to both parts ofthis allegation.
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, denies that thereis or ought to be a current
`default, as to any further allegations, she lacks sufficient knowledge and leaves
`
`the Plaintiff to its proof.
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, lacks sufficient knowledge and leaves the
`Plaintiff to its proof.
`
`

`

`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, lacks sufficient knowledge and leaves the
`
`Plaintiff to its proof.
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi Admits that she remains in possession of the
`
`premises, as to the remaining allegations, she lacks sufficient knowledge and
`
`leaves the Plaintiffto its proof.
`
`SPECIAL DEFENSES
`
`FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE: EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
`
`1,
`
`On or about December 13, 2016, Christopher Manzi (now deceased) and the
`Defendant,Deborah Manzi, purchasedthe property whichis the subject ofthis
`
`foreclosure action. The Deed evidencingthis purchase and sale is recorded in
`
`Volume 947 at Page 772 of the North Haven Land Records.
`
`Atall times relevant prior to the commencementofthis action, Christopher Manzi
`
`and the Defendant experienced a decrease in their household income due to
`
`Christopher’s deteriorating health, notwithstanding, they made every effort to
`
`continue to honor their mortgage commitments.
`
`The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic further hindered their income and on
`
`October 31, 2021, Christopher Manzi was pronounced dead.
`
`Atall timesrelevantthereafter, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, continued to
`
`communicate with the Plaintiff by and through its agent, Mr. Cooper.
`
`On or before December 2022, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, was working with
`
`Mr. Cooper on a proposed loan modification to cure the prior default.
`On or about December 30, 2022, the Court (Kamp, J.), Ordered this action
`administratively closed (see, Entry #126.10), in light of which, the Defendant did
`
`

`

`not file a formal Appearance.
`
`Atall times relevant, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, remained in contact with
`
`Mr. Cooper and further authorized Mr. Cooper to communicate with herattorney,
`
`the undersigned counsel.
`
`On or about January, 2023, Mr. Cooper, sent the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, a
`
`Trial Modification Agreement, which provided, inter alia, that so long as the
`
`Defendant made three consecutive payments, her account would be reviewed for a
`
`permanent modification to cure the existing default.
`
`Atail times relevant, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, did abide by the terms of the
`Trial Modification Agreement and on or before May 25, 2023, Mr. Cooper
`approved the Defendant for a Permanent Modification and provided the
`
`Defendant with a Modification Agreement upon termsestablished by Mr. Cooper
`and/orthe Plaintiff(the “First Modification Agreement”).
`
`10.
`
`Motespecifically, the terms of the First Modification Agreement offered by Mr.
`
`Cooper identified an outstanding balance of $31 1,835.47, which would be
`
`reduced by$69,464.12 and the balance of $242,371.35 would be repaid over a
`
`period of 30 years at 6.375%,
`
`11.
`
`On or about May 25, 2023, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi accepted the terms of
`
`the First Modification Agreement by executing the First Modification Agreement
`
`and returning same to Mr. Cooper with the provided FedEx label. A copy of the
`
`First Modification Agreementare attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`12.
`
`Despite accepting the terms offered by Mr. Cooper, at all times relevant
`
`thereafter, the Plaintiff failed refused and neglected to process the First
`
`

`

`Modification Agreement and would not accept the payments tendered by the
`
`Defendant on or after July 1, 2023.
`
`13.
`
`When the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, contacted Mr. Cooperfor a status on the
`
`First Modification Agreement, she was advised orally, that Mr. Cooper and/or the
`
`Plaintiff was no Jonger going to honor the termsthat were offered to and accepted
`
`by the Defendant.
`
`14,
`
`Onor before September 13, 2023, Mr. Cooper provided the Defendant with
`
`another Modification Agreement upon terms established by Mr. Cooperand/or
`
`the Plaintiff (the “Second Modification Agreement”).
`
`15,
`
`More specifically, the terms ofthe Second Modification Agreement offered by
`
`Mr. Cooperidentified an outstanding balance of $316,462.23, which would be
`
`reduced by $69,152.37 and the balance of $247,309.86 would now be repaid over
`
`a period of 40 years at 6.375%.
`
`16.
`
`Notwithstanding the fact that the terms ofthe Second Modification Agreement
`
`were more onerous than the First Modification Agreement, on or about September
`
`13, 2023, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi accepted the terms of the Second
`
`Modification Agreement by executing the Second Modification Agreement and
`
`returning same to Mr. Cooper with the provided FedEx label. A copy of the
`
`Second Modification Agreement are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`Despite accepting the terms offered by Mr. Cooper,at all times relevant
`
`17.
`
`thereafter, the Plaintiff failed refused and neglected to process the Second
`
`Modification Agreement and would not accept the payments tendered by the
`
`Defendant on or after November 1, 2023.
`
`

`

`18.
`
`When the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, contacted Mr. Cooperfor a status on the
`
`Second Modification Agreement, she was advised orally, that Mr. Cooper and/or
`
`the Plaintiff was no longer going to honor the termsthat were offered to and
`
`accepted by the Defendant. The Defendant requested a written letter of
`
`explanation but nothing was provided.
`
`On or about February 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Reclaim ofits Motion for
`
`Judgment dated October 6, 2021. The certification showsthat despite the
`
`knowledge that the Defendant was working with the Plaintiff by and through its
`
`servicer, the Plaintiff failed, refused and neglected to provide notice to the
`
`Defendant after the prior administrative closure.
`On or about February 14, 2024, the Court scheduled this matter for a remote Short
`
`20.
`
`Calendar hearing to oceur on February 16, 2024, notice ofwhich was agam not
`
`provided to the Defendant, Deborah Manzi.
`
`21.
`
`Onor about February 16, 2024, a default Judgmententered and the Court (Spader,
`
`J.) ordered that the property be sold at auction on June 1, 2024,
`
`22,
`
`Onor about February 20, 2024, the Defendantfirst learned that that while waiting
`for a formal response from Mr. Cooper, a judgment had entered without her
`
`knowledge. The Defendant then engaged the undersigned counselto investigate
`
`her rights underthe current circumstances.
`
`23.
`
`Butfor the Plaintiffs wrongful rejection of its own First Modification Agreement
`
`and/or Second Modification Agreement, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, would
`
`no longer be in default of her loan obligations and judgment would not have
`
`entered on February 16, 2024.
`
`

`

`24,
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, has been harmed by the misconductofthe
`
`Plaintiff, its servicer and attorneys in waging a virtual war ofattrition and
`
`intimidation.
`
`25.
`
`At all times relevant prior to January 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs misconduct during
`the course ofthis action, has not only frustrated the Defendant’s ability to seek a
`
`joan modification, as an alternative to foreclosure,it also caused thousands of
`
`dollars in additional accrued interest, attorney’s fees, escrow advances and other
`
`costs to be added to the debt claimed by the Plaintiff in this action.
`
`26.
`
`The Plaintiffs misconduct during the courseofthis action has also unnecessarily
`
`and negligently prolonged the current foreclosure process, increased the
`
`Defendant’s cost oflitigation, exposed the Defendantsto potentially significant
`
`tax abilities and caused ruinous damage to her credit score.
`
`27,
`
`The acts and omissionof the Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys, are part of
`
`a larger pattern and practice of avoiding or abdicating responsibility to consider
`
`alternatives to foreclosure or misleading consumers about the viability of such
`
`alternatives to foreclosure.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`All of the acts and omissionsofthe Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneysrelate
`to both (1) the Plaintiff's enforcementofthe subject Note and Mortgage; and (2)
`the Defendant’s post-foreclosure attempts to seek an alternative to foreclosure,
`
`Based upon the foregoing, the Plaintiff breached its duty to process the First
`Modification Agreement that was offered to and accepted by the Defendant,
`
`Deborah Manzi, the terms ofwhich should be binding upon the Plaintiff, who
`
`should be equitably estopped from being about to obtain a foreclosure ofthe Note
`
`

`

`and Mortgage and from collecting the damagesit seeks as a result of the conduct
`
`alleged herein,
`
`SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`1-27. Paragraphs 1 through 27 ofthe First Special Defense are hereby restated and
`
`incorporated as Paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Second Special Defense.
`
`28.
`
`The Plaintiff has benefitted from its actionsin that it continues to charge the
`
`Defendant, Deborah Manzi, for the interest that is accruing on the loan as well as
`
`the costs of commencing and pursuing a foreclosure action against the Defendant,
`
`while at the same time,failing, refusing and neglecting to honorthe termsofthe
`
`First Loan Modification and/or the Second Loan Modification, which was offered
`
`to and timely accepted by the Defendant.
`
`29.
`
`The Defendant has suffered and continues to suffer financial harm as a result of
`
`the actions and omissions of the Plaintiff, its servicer and/or attorneys, in the form
`
`of accrued interest, fees and costs by the Plaintiff to her account.
`
`30.
`
`All of the acts and omissionsofthe Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys relate
`
`to both (1) the Plaintiffs enforcementofthe subject Note and Mortgage; and (2)
`
`31.
`
`the Defendant’s post-foreclosure attempts to seek an alternative to foreclosure.
`The Plaintiffhas been unjustly enriched by its conduct and the conductofits
`servicer and/or attorneys to the detriment of the Defendant, andits attempt to
`
`pursue a foreclosure of the Note and Mortgage should be barred,
`
`

`

`THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE: UNCLEAN HANDS
`
`1-30.
`
`Paragraphs.1 through 30 of the Second Special Defense are hereby restated and
`
`incorporated as Paragraphs | through 30 of this Third Special Defense.
`
`3].
`
`The Plaintiff, its servicer and/or attorneys have conducted themselves throughout
`
`the loss mitigation processin willful and/or reckless disregard ofthe harmful
`
`consequences their solicitations, representations and conduct would causeto the
`
`Defendant, Deborah Manzi, and others like her.
`
`32.
`
`In their dealings with the Defendant, the Plaintiff, its servicer and/or attorneys
`have failedto conduct themselves in a mannerthat is fair, equitable and honest,
`
`which conductthreatensthe integrity of the Court.
`
`33.
`
`All ofthe acts and omissionsof the Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys relate
`
`to both (1) the Plaintiff's enforcementofthe subject Note and Mortgage; and (2)
`
`the Defendant’s post-foreclosure attempts to seek an alternative to foreclosure.
`
`34.
`
`The Plaintiffs attempt to seek a foreclosure ofthe Note and Mortgage should be
`
`barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
`
`FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE: ACCORD AND SATISFACTION (C.G.S. 8424-3-
`
`311)
`
`1-33.
`
`Paragraphs| through 33 ofthe Third Special Defense are hereby restated and
`
`incorporated as Paragraphs 1 through 33 ofthis Fourth Special Defense.
`
`34.
`
`The acceptance by the Defendantofthe First Modification Agreement and/or the
`
`Second Modification Agreementtendered by the Plaintiff, constitutes an accord
`and satisfaction ofthe Defendant’s default.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information andbelief, it is undisputed that the First Modification
`
`

`

`Agreement and the Second Modification Agreement both originated from the
`
`Plaintiff, were signed by the Defendant, Deborah Manzi andreturnedto the
`Plaintiff’s loan servicer, Mr. Cooper, and were not repudiated prior to be returned
`
`to Mr. Cooper.
`
`36.
`
`As a result of the accord andsatisfaction ofthe First Modification Agreement, the
`
`default existing as of May 25, 2023, was fully satisfied as a matter of law and the
`
`Plaintiff was without a basis to proceed with this action.
`
`37.
`
`The Plaintiff's attempt to seek a foreclosure of the Note and Mortgage should be
`
`barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM: NEGLIGENCE
`
`On or about December 13, 2016, Christopher Manzi (now deceased) and the
`
`Defendant, Deborah Manzi, purchased the property whichis the subjectofthis
`
`foreclosureaction. The Deed evidencing this purchase and sale is recorded in
`
`Volume 947 at Page 772 of the North Haven Land Records.
`
`At all times relevant prior to the commencementofthis action, Christopher Manzi
`
`and the Defendant experienced a decreasein their household income due to
`
`Christopher’s deteriorating health, notwithstanding, they made every effort to
`
`continue to honor their mortgage commitments.
`
`The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic further hindered their income and on
`
`October 31, 2021, Christopher Manzi was pronounced dead.
`
`At all times relevant thereafter, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, continued to
`
`

`

`communicate with the Plaintiff by and through its agent, Mr. Cooper.
`
`On or before December 2022, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, was working with
`
`Mr. Cooper on a proposed loan modification to cure the prior default.
`
`On or about December 30, 2022, the Court (Kamp,J.), Ordered this action
`
`administratively closed (see, Entry #126.10), in light of which, the Defendant did
`
`notfile a formal Appearance.
`
`At ail timesrelevant, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, remained in contact with
`
`Mr. Cooper and further authorized Mr. Cooper to communicate with her attorney,
`
`the undersigned counsel.
`On or about January, 2023, Mr. Cooper, sent the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, a
`
`Trial Modification Agreement, which provided, inter alia, that so long as the
`
`Defendant made three consecutive payments, her account would be reviewed for a
`
`permanent modification to cure the existing default.
`
`Atall times relevant, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, did abide by the terms of the
`
`Trial Modification Agreementand on or before May 25, 2023, Mr. Cooper
`
`approved the Defendant for a Permanent Modification and provided the
`
`Defendant with a Modification Agreement upon terms established by Mr. Cooper
`
`and/orthe Plaintiff (the “First Modification Agreement”),
`
`10.
`
`Morespecifically, the terms of the First Modification Agreement offered by Mr.
`
`Cooperidentified an outstanding balance of $31 1,835.47, which would be
`
`reduced by $69,464.12 and the balance of $242,371.35 would be repaid over a
`
`period of 30 years at 6.375%.
`
`Ll.
`
`On or about May 25, 2023, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi accepted the terms of
`
`

`

`the First Modification Agreementby executing the First Modification Agreement
`
`and returning same to Mr. Cooper with the provided FedEx label. A copy of the
`
`First Modification Agreementare attached hereto as ExhibitA.
`Despite accepting the terms offered by Mr. Cooper,at all times relevant
`
`12.
`
`thereafter, the Plaintiff failed refused and neglected to process the First
`
`Modification Agreement and would not accept the payments tendered by the
`
`Defendant onor after July 1, 2023.
`
`13.
`
`When the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, contacted Mr. Cooperfor a status on the
`
`First Modification Agreement, she was advisedorally, that Mr. Cooper and/or the
`
`Plaintiff was no longer going to honor the terms that were offered to and accepted
`
`by the Defendant.
`
`14.
`
`Onor before September 13, 2023, Mr. Cooper provided the Defendant with
`
`another Modification Agreement upon termsestablished by Mr. Cooper and/or
`
`the Plaintiff (the “Second Modification Agreement”).
`
`15.
`
`Morespecifically, the terms of the Second Modification Agreement offered by
`
`Mr. Cooperidentified an outstanding balanceof $3 16,462.23, which would be
`reduced by$69,152.37 and the balance of$247,309.86 would now berepaid over
`a period of 40 years at 6.375%.
`
`16.
`
`Notwithstanding the fact that the terms ofthe Second Modification Agreement
`
`were more onerous than the First Modification Agreement, on or about September
`
`13, 2023, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi accepted the terms of the Second
`
`Modification Agreement by executing the Second Modification Agreement and
`
`returning same to Mr. Cooper with the provided FedEx label. A copy ofthe
`
`

`

`Second Modification Agreement are attached hereto as ExhibitB.
`
`17.
`
`Despite accepting the terms offered by Mr. Cooper,at all times relevant
`
`thereafter, the Plaintiff failed refused and neglected to process the Second
`
`Modification Agreement and would not accept the payments tendered by the
`
`Defendant on or after November 1, 2023.
`
`18.
`
`Whenthe Defendant, Deborah Manzi, contacted Mr. Cooperfor a status on the
`
`Second Modification Agreement, she was advised orally, that Mr. Cooper and/or
`the Plaintiffwas no longer going to honorthe terms that were offered to and
`
`accepted by the Defendant. The Defendant requested a written letter of
`
`19.
`
`explanation but nothing was provided.
`On or about February 7, 2024, the Plaintifffiled a Reclaim of its Motion for
`Judgment dated October 6, 2021. The certification showsthat despite the
`knowledge that the Defendant was working with the Plaintiffby and through its
`
`servicer, the Plaintiff failed, refused and neglected to provide notice to the
`
`Defendantafter the prior administrative closure.
`
`20.
`
`On or about February 14, 2024, the Court scheduled this matter for a remote Short
`
`Calendar hearing to occur on February 16, 2024, notice of which was again not
`
`provided to the Defendant, Deborah Manzi.
`
`21,
`
`22.
`
`On or about February 16, 2024, a default Judgment entered and the Court (Spader,
`J.) ordered that the property be sold at auction on June 1, 2024,
`
`On or about February 20, 2024, the Defendantfirst learned that that while waiting
`for a formal response from Mr. Cooper, a judgment had entered without her
`
`knowledge. The Defendant then engaged the undersigned counselto investigate
`
`

`

`her rights under the current circumstances.
`But for the Plaintif?s wrongful rejection ofits own First Modification Agreement
`
`23.
`
`and/or Second Modification Agreement, the Defendant, Deborah Manzi, would
`
`no longer be in default of her loan obligations and judgment would not have
`
`entered on February 16, 2024.
`
`24,
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, has been harmed by the misconduct ofthe
`
`Plaintiff, its servicer and attorneys in waging a virtual war ofattrition and
`
`intimidation.
`
`25,
`
`Atall timesrelevant prior to January 16, 2024, the Plaintiff's misconduct during
`
`the course ofthis action, has not only frustrated the Defendant's ability to seek a
`
`loan modification, as an alternative to foreclosure, it also caused thousands of
`
`dollars in additional accrued interest, attorney’s fees, escrow advances and other
`
`costs to be addedto the debt claimed by the Plaintiff in this action.
`
`26.
`
`The Plaintiffs misconduct during the courseof this action has also unnecessarily
`and negligently prolonged the current foreclosure process, increased the
`Defendant’s cost oflitigation, exposed the Defendants to potentially significant
`
`tax liabilities and caused ruinous damageto hercredit score.
`The acts and omission ofthe Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys, are part of
`
`ai,
`
`a larger pattern and practice of avoiding or abdicating responsibility to consider
`
`alternatives to foreclosure or misleading consumers about the viability of such
`
`alternatives to foreclosure.
`
`28.
`
`All of the acts and omissions of the Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys relate _
`
`to both (1) the Plaintiffs enforcement of the subject Note and Mortgage; and (2)
`
`

`

`the Defendant’s post-foreclosure attempts to seek an alternative to foreclosure.
`
`29,
`
`Based uponthe foregoing,the Plaintiff breachedits duty to process the First
`
`Modification Agreementthat was offered to and accepted by the Defendant,
`
`Deborah Manzi, the terms of which should be binding upon the Plaintiff, who
`
`should be equitably estopped from being about to obtain a foreclosure of the Note
`
`and Mortgage and from collecting the damagesit seeks as a result of the conduct
`
`alleged herein.
`
`30.
`
`The Plaintiff owes a duty of care to the customers whose loansit purports to
`
`originate, acquire and/or service, including the Defendant, Deborah Manzi.
`
`31.
`
`This breach ofthe duty of care by the Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys has
`
`led to significant financial injury, including but not limited to thousands of dollars
`in additional accrued interest, escrow advances, attorney’s fees and other costs
`
`being added to the Defendant’s account.
`
`32.
`
`The unnecessary and negligent prolonging ofthis process has further damaged the
`
`Defendant by ruining her credit scores and prolonging the period of time before
`
`she can overcome both the economicprejudice and the social stigma that
`
`reasonable and available alternatives to foreclosure were to intended to avoid.
`
`33.
`
`The Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneysare liable for the damages suffered
`
`by the Defendant proximately caused as a result of their negligent acts and
`
`omissions, including but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to
`
`C.G.S. §42-150bb.
`
`

`

`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM: VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR
`TRADE PRACTICES ACT (““CUTPA”) (C.G.S. §42-110a, et seq).
`
`1-33.
`
`Paragraphs. through 33 of the First Counterclaim are hereby restated and
`
`incorporated as Paragraphs | through 33 of this Second Counterclaim.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, is a “person” as defined by C.G.S. § 42-110a (3).
`
`The actions ofthe Plaintiff, its servicer and/or its attorneys were done in the
`
`conduct of trade or commerce.
`
`36.
`
`The mereact of loan administration or default servicing is not necessarily
`
`unlawful, unscrupulous or offensive to public policy, however, the Plaintiff’ s
`actions, particularly their failure to participate in loss mitigation efforts in good
`faith, but for the advancementof their own financial gains at the expense ofthe
`
`Defendant, is within the penumbra ofa violation of some commonlaw, statutory
`
`and/or other conceptof fairness.
`
`37.
`
`The Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys have engaged in immoral, unethical,
`
`oppressive, unscrupulous, unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices within the
`
`meaning of C.G.S. §42-110(a) in one or more ofthe following ways:
`
`Bycreating and offering the Defendant multiple loan modification agreements
`
`with terms that were within Plaintiff's own control, inducing the Defendantto
`
`accept those termsand failing to consummate the agreements as accepted;
`
`By making material misrepresentations and/or omissions likely to mislead a |
`
`consumer acting reasonably underthe circumstances, including but notlimited
`
`to misrepresenting to the Defendantthe availability of reasonable alternatives
`to foreclosure, as well as communicating inaccurate, conflicting and confusing
`information to the Defendant throughoutthe judicial process;
`
`

`

`By improperly charging to the Defendantfees, interest and other charges to
`
`which it is not entitled;
`
`By failing to notify the Defendant that legal proceedings were being resumed,
`
`even after being advised of her participation with the Plaintiff's agent and
`
`with the assistance of counsel.
`
`38.
`
`The actions of the Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys have offended public
`
`policy, in violation of C.G.S. §49-31 et seq.
`
`39.
`
`The actions of the Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys are willful, immoral,
`
`unscrupulous, unethical and/or oppressive and cause substantial injury to
`borrowerslike the Defendant.
`
`40.
`
`As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the foregoing acts and omissions,
`
`Deborah Manzi has suffered an ascertainable loss as that term is used in C.G.S.
`
`§42-110g(a), to wit: (1) thousandsof dollars in interest, attorney’s fees, escrow
`
`advances, and other costs of foreclosure charged to their account during the
`
`mediation process; and (2) significant sumsfor legal representations and other
`
`professional services and costs in an effort to obtain a short sale alternative to
`
`foreclosure and defense of the foreclosure action.
`
`41.
`
`The Plaintiff is liable to the Defendant for the Damagesshe has suffered as a
`
`result of their violation of CUTPA.
`
`42.
`
`A copyofthis pleading has been mailed to the Office of the Attorney General and
`
`the Commissioner on ConsumerProtection pursuant to C.G.S. § 42-110g(c).
`
`

`

`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`1-33. Paragraphs | through 33 of the First Counterclaim are hereby restated and
`
`incorporated as Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Second Counterclaim.
`The Plaintiff benefitted from its actions and the actionsofits servicer and/or
`
`34.
`
`attorneys, at the expense of the Defendant, in that the Plaintiff continued to accrue
`
`interest against the Defendant’s mortgage account, as well as the costs of
`
`commencing and pursuing a foreclosure action,all the while avoiding good-faith
`
`participation in the loss mitigation process.
`
`35.
`
`The actions of the Plaintiff, its servicers and/or attorneys, was intentionally
`
`calculated to increase the amountofthe indebtedness and the costsoflitigation so
`
`as to make the opportunities for loss mitigation an impossibility.
`
`36.
`
`The actionsofthe Plaintiff, its servicers and/or attorneys, was in derogation of the
`
`Plaintiff's statutory duty to meaningfully participate in alternatives to foreclosure
`
`in good faith.
`
`37,
`
`The Defendant, Deborah Manzi, has suffered financial harm as a result of the
`
`actions ofthe Plaintiff, its servicer and/orits attorneys charging interest, fees and
`costs to her mortgage account.
`
`38.
`
`The Plaintiff has been unjustly enriched by its conduct and the conductofits
`
`servicer and/or attomeys, to the detriment of the Defendant.
`
`39.
`
`ThePlaintiff is liable to the Defendant for the damages caused bytheir unjust
`
`enrichment.
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE,the Defendantrespectfully pray that this Court:
`
`. Deny the Plaintiffs attempt to foreclose on her family home;
`
`. Orderthat the Plaintiff remove all wrongful charges, fees and interest from their
`account as of May 25, 2023;
`
`. Order that the Plaintiff modify the terms ofthe Defendant’s Note and Mortgage in
`accordancewith the terms of the First Modification Agreement dated on or about
`May 25, 2023;
`,
`
`. Order that the Plaintiffreimburse the Defendantfor her reasonable attorney’s fees
`incurred during the judicial mediation. process and the defense ofthis action,
`pursuant to C.G.S, §42-150bb;
`
`. Order that the Plaintiffpay to the Defendant heractual and consequential
`damages pursuantto C.G.S, §42-110g(a);
`
`. Order the Plaintiffto pay to the Defendant punitive damages in an amount
`calculated to punish the Plaintiff for its willful and egregious conduct, pursuant to
`C.G.S. § 42-1 10g(a);
`. Enjoin all unlawful acts and practices complained ofherein pursuant to C.G.S.§
`. 42-1108(d);
`
`. Award the Defendant reasonable attormey’s fees and costs pursuant to C.G.S. §
`42-110g(d); and
`
`. Award such other and furtherrelief that the Court deems Just and proper.
`
`THE DEFENDANT
`
`By:____416399
`David E. Rosenberg, Esq.
`Gambardella, Cipriano, Gottlieb
`& Hathaway, P.C.
`Her Attorney
`60 Washington Avenue, Suite 104
`Hamden, CT 06518
`Tel: (475) 227-0291
`Fax: (203) 287-0048
`Firm Juris # 102342
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION
`
`[ hereby certify that a copy of the above wassent via e-mail, facsimile and/or U.S.
`Mail on this 15" day of April, 2024, to the following counsel andpro se parties of record:
`
`Brock and Scott PLLC
`270 Farmington Avenue
`Suite 151
`Farmington, CT 06032
`
`Francis J Doherty, Esq.
`3190 Whitney Avenue
`Building #4
`' Hamden, CT 06518
`
`416399
`David E. Rosenberg
`Commissioner of the Superior Court
`
`

`

`
`
`Recording Requested By/Return To:
`NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC
`DIB/A MR. COOPER
`,
`999 TECH ROW, #200
`MADISON HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN
`48071
`
`
`
`[Space Above This Line For Recording Data]
`
`
`
`MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
`
`Property Address: 41 NORTHSIDE
`RD, NORTH HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
`06473
`‘
`
`MIN: 100690516090316025
`Loan Number 689610582
`FHA Case Number 061-5029870703
`This Loan Modification Agreement (‘Agreement’), effective on 1ST DAY OF WULY, 2023,
`between ESTATE OF ‘CHRISTOPHER MANZI AND DEBORAH MANZi
`(“Borrower"},
`and
`NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A MR. COOPER (“Lender”), and Mortgage Electronic
`Registration Systems, Inc: CMERS”) (“Morigagee"} as designated nominee for Nationstar Mortgage
`LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, beneficiary of the security instrument, its successors and assigns, amends and
`Supplements (1) the Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed (the “Security instrument’) dated
`DECEMBER 12, 2016 and recorded in RECORDED DATE : 12/13/2016 BOOK - 947 PAGE : 774
`
`41 NORTHSIDE RD, NORTH HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06473
`(Property Address}
`the real property described being set forth as follows:
`LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
`ALL THAT CERTAIN PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND, WITH THE BUILDINGS AND ALL OTHER
`IMPROVEMENTS THEREON,SITUATED IN THE TOWN OF NORTH HAVEN, COUNTY OF NEW
`
`SAID MAP, 75 FEET; WEST BY LOTS NO. 33 AND NO. 34 ON SAID MAP, 187,98 FEET.
`
`$1003004v23.3
`Rev. 10/46
`
`Version 05_13_202301_00_45
`
`
`
`
`(page 1of10)
`
`

`

`Loan Number 689610582
`
`if my representations and covenants in Section 1 continue to be true in all material respects, then this
`Modification Agreement (“Agreement”) will, as set forth in Section 3, amend and supplement (1) the
`Security Instrument on the Property, and (2) the Promissory Note secured by the Security Instrument
`(Original Note”). The Security instrument and Original Note together, as they may previously have
`been amended, are referred to as the “Loan Documents.” Except for “Subordinate Note” and
`“Subordinate Security Instrument”, capitalized terms usedin this Agreement and not defined have the
`meaning given to them in Loan Documents,
`
`| understand that after | sign and return the Subordinate Note, Subordinate Security Instrument, and
`two copies of this Agreement to the Lender, the Lender will send me a signed copyof this Agreement.
`This Agreement will not take effect unless the preconditions set forth in Section 2 have beensatisfied.
`
`1.
`
`2,
`
`B.
`C.
`
`My Representations and Covenants.| certify, represent to Lender, covenant and agree:
`A
`| am experiencing a financial hardship, and as a result, fi) | am in default under the
`Loan Documents or my default is imminent, and {ii} | do not have sufficient income or
`accessto sufficient liquid assets to cure the default or to make the monthly mortgage
`payments noworin the near future;
`:
`The Property has not been condemned;
`There has been no impermissible change in the ownership of the Property since |
`signed the Loan Documents. A permissible change would be any transfer that the
`Lender is required by law to allow, such as a transfer to add or remove a family
`member, spouse or domestic partner of the undersigned in the event of a death,
`divorce or marriage;
`Under penalty of perjury, all documents and information 1 have provided to Lenderin
`connection with this Agreement, including the documents and information regarding
`my eligibility for the Program, are true.and correct:
`if Lender requires me to obtain credit counseling in connection with the Program, j will
`EL
`do so; and
`| have madeor will makeall payments required undera trial period plan.
`F,
`Acknowledgements and Preconditions to Modification.| understand and acknowledge
`that:
`
`D,
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`If prior to the Modification Effective Date as set forth in Section 3 the Lender determines
`that any of my representations in Section 1 are no longer true and correct or any
`covenant in Section 1 has not been performed, the Loan Documents will not be modified,
`this Agreement will
`terminate, and the Subordinate Note and Subordinate Security
`instrument will not be in effect. In that event, the Lender will have ail of the rights and
`remedies provided by the Loan Documents: and
`
`| understand that the Loan Documents will not be modified unless and until (i) the Lender
`accepts this Agreement by signing and returning a copy of it to me, and {ii} the
`Modification Effective Date (as defined in Section 3) has occurred. | further understand
`and agree that the Lenderwill not be obligated or bound to make any modification of the
`Loan Documents f| fail to meet any one of the requirements under this Agreement.
`
`91003004v23.3
`Rev, 10/16
`Version 0513202301_00_15