DOCKET # FST-CV-13-6017689-S CITIMORTGAGE, INC. V. PARTCH, DOROTHY S., ET AL.

: APPELLATE COURT : STATE OF CONNECTICUT : OCTOBER 10, 2013

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES Proposed Intervening Defendant-Appellant Marjorie Partch presents the following issues for this appeal of the Superior Court Decision to Deny her Motion to Be Made a Party Defendant in the above-captioned Foreclosure: Whether the trial court gave sufficient consideration to the facts, new evidence, and arguments qualifying her for Inclusion: Under both tests provided in C.G.S. 52-102, Appellant seeks to invoke the Equitable Powers of the Courts, given all the still-pending related litigations involving still-emerging evidence of Fraud leading up to and possibly including the present Foreclosure proceeding: Upon motion made by any party or nonparty to a civil action (1) may be made a party by the court if that person has or claims an interest in the controversy, or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff; OR (2) shall be made a party by the court if that person is necessary for a complete determination or settlement of any question involved therein shall be made a defendant in the controversy, emphasis added. The First Test for Inclusion: (1) Appellant refers to her colorable CLAIM TO AN INTEREST in the underlying (and undervalued) property located at 20 Devils Garden Road, Norwalk, CT 06854 (the Property). Said interest is substantiated by the following three points: (a) Referenced in its entirety as Exhibit B to Appellants (8/19/13) Motion to Reargue (Motion #122) is a recent Decision regarding a Tort Complaint concerning her mothers Fraudulently Procured Conservatorship: Marjorie Partch v. Wilton Meadows Healthcare Corp. Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV 126029435 (August 1, 2013) (00 Conn. L. Rptr. 00). The Bridgeport Superior Court concludes in its 18-page Memorandum, which upholds all five of Appellants Counts, including the violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act [CUTPA], C.G.S. 420-110a et seq. (Discovery is certain to expand this scope of Investigation): Finally, just because the plaintiff [Marjorie Partch] has not alleged that she was a fee holder or lease holder of her mothers personal residence does not require the court to conclude that the plaintiff does not possess a redressable interest in the residence. Thus, for the purposes of the present motion, the plaintiff can claim a legally redressable injury in the form of eviction from the residence [pp. 16-17]. 1

(b) Appellants eligibility to transfer title to the Property to her own name under the Federal Medicaid Rules concerning the Caregivers Exception (to the property-transfer look-back period) is a second justification. This Federal Law [42 U.S.C.A. 1396p(c)(2)(A)(iv); U.P.M. 3029 A.1.e.] is an appropriate Standard of Review in the present case: After two years of caring for ones parent at home, an adult child is entitled to ownership of the Property. Appellant cared for her mother at home for more than six years. How can Appellant not have an interest in the Property? (c) This rightful interest was superseded by the Fraudulently Procured Conservatorship of Defendant Dorothy S. Partch the subject of various pending litigations. Accordingly, it is premature to consider the 2011 Probate Decree to Quiet Title presented in Appellees 7/26/13 (#117) Objection to Appellants Motion for Inclusion (#115) as the final word. This assumption appears to be the third error in the trial courts Decision. The Second Test for Inclusion: (2) Under the Statute, and Connecticut Practice Book 9-18, in addition to her claims to a direct and substantial interest in the Property, Appellant shows that her participation in the present action is necessary for the Courts to make a complete determination of the issues, for several additional reasons, including but not limited to the following: (a) If Appellant is permitted Discovery, even more legitimate questions will come to light, given her unique knowledge, documentation, and her Proposed Interrogatories (#120) regarding the ownership and transfer history of the Mortgage in question. She has serious questions regarding the claimed 2012 conveyance to Citimortgage purportedly from 1st Atlantic Mortgage, and not from Flagstar Bank, which took over the original loan in 2006. Appellant offers these queries as reasons for her Inclusion. (b) In her Proposed Objection (Motion #119) to Plaintiffs Misleading Federal Loss Mitigation Programs Affidavit (Entry #104), Appellant presents evidence of Defendant Dorothy S. Partchs Application for a Government-Sponsored Loan Modification, initiated in August 2012, in direct opposition to Plaintiff-Appellees false statements that she made no such Application, and was unresponsive to Plaintiff-Appellees attempts to extend this opportunity. These misrepresentations could potentially rush the case toward Judgment were it not for the Intervention of the Proposed Defendant-Appellant. Neither Conservator who has filed an Appearance has raised this Objection. (c) As Appellant alerted the trial court in Paragraph 3 of her original (7/17/13) Motion (#115), the Property is being grossly undervalued (by more than $200,000). Even being staged to look like a tear-down, as the Property currently is, professionally prepared Market Comparisons are coming in at a substantially higher price point. This indicates significant equity established in the Property, currently being disregarded; that is to say: there are 40 years of equity hidden in the Property, which Appellant is uniquely positioned, motivated, and entitled to protect. 2

(d) At Oral Reargument to Be Made a Party Defendant (9/9/13), Appellant presented recently discovered new evidence of the deliberately perpetrated Fraud against both Partch Defendants. This newly discovered evidence also confirms the complicity of the former Conservator for Defendant Dorothy S. Partch, a real estate attorney who nominally represented the Defendant in the following apparently collusive suit in 2011. This suit was brought by Wilton Meadows at the same time as a 2011 Probate Decree to sell the Property under a short sale agreement also simultaneously negotiated with Plaintiff-Appellee; again, for a greatly reduced price. Appellant appealed that Decree as a recognized Aggrieved Party, under C.G.S. 45a-186, and would do so again: Wilton Meadows v. Dorothy S. Partch (Conservator: Matthew A. Caputo) , Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV 11-5029523-S (June 2, 2011) (00 Conn. L. Rptr. 00). Entry No. 100.37 on this Docket is an Affidavit by Wilton Meadows asserting that Appellants signature was binding, as Attorney-in-Fact for Dorothy S. Partch; i.e., admitting Appellants improperly superseded authority, which Wilton Meadows has persistently denied, and/or denied knowledge about, in every other Court. Note Wilton Meadows Admissions documents also endorsing said authority, cosigned by Appellant and Wilton Meadows Director of Admissions on April 25, 2010. For example, compare Wilton Meadows (7/8/10) Application for Involuntary Conservatorship, Exhibit F to Appellants initial Motion (#115). (3) While the Honorable Kevin Tierney did laughingly acknowledge the absurdity of Wilton Meadows denial of Appellants authority [see 9/9/13 Transcript: Its all over the place, he exclaimed], he did not seem to fully appreciate the seriousness of the Fraud, or its impact; or its relevance to the present case; or to Appellants rightful position; or the resultant implications regarding further potential improprieties in the instant Foreclosure proceeding, initiated under the tenure of the Predecessor Conservator, Matthew A. Caputo (Caputo) and for which Caputo filed an Appearance on April 16, 2013. (4) At oral argument (9/9/13), Appellant attempted to further demonstrate Caputos participation in the ongoing Fraud against both Partch Defendants, by presenting a (3/22/13) Motion that Caputo submitted to the Probate Court a mere four days before the present Foreclosure action. However, the trial court upheld Plaintiff-Appellees Objection. (5) These items of newly discovered and newly relevant evidence have since been, and will be, filed as matters of Public Record in other related proceedings in other Courts. They are extremely relevant to the present case. On 9/25/13, Appellant also filed an Objection to the Appointment of yet another (third) Conservator for her mother, while again requesting her own Appointment, which would absolutely assure her standing in the present case. It seemed that Appellants underlying point driving her questions regarding the actions of the former Conservator in his joint dealings with Plaintiff-Appellee was entirely lost on the trial court; or that she lacked the standing to raise her questions. Appellants comparison in her oral argument on 9/9/13 to the potential fiduciary and clean hands issues in Willow v. Grencom, 2000 Ct. Sup. 828 [Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV-95-0146003-S (Jan. 19, 2000)] seemed to fall on deaf ears. 3

(6) Through these arguments and related litigations, Appellant is bringing grave ethical considerations to the attention of multiple Courts. Appellant moves that this trial court erred in its discretion to exclude her from participating in the present Foreclosure proceeding, in which she has a clear and demonstrable interest, and to which she can make necessary contributions toward the proper administration of Justice, and preventing further Injustice against her beleaguered family, namely, the irreversible loss of their shared home. As the only party (or non-party) raising the preceding questions, Proposed Intervening DefendantAppellant should be granted the opportunity and platform for Justice to seek their answers, and to protect her claim to her interest. While she expects to ultimately prevail in these various related concurrent litigations, Appellant is also striving to preserve the Property for her mothers immediate return to her beloved home of more than 40 years. Any Mortgage found to be valid in these proceedings could easily be reinstated, with payments guaranteed by Defendant Dorothy S. Partchs State Pension and Social Security benefits. Respectfully submitted,

PROPOSED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT MARJORIE PARTCH BY: ____________________________________ Marjorie Partch Self-Represented c/o David Vita, Director of Social Justice The Unitarian Church in Westport 10 Lyons Plains Road Westport, CT 06880 203.912.3528 / 203.227.7205, x 14 map@marjoriepartch.com