Brian Rich regularly represents both corporate and individual clients in a variety of business and commercial disputes, including real estate litigation, mortgage resolution, fraud and tort related matters. He also represents financial institutions in contested foreclosure matters and in the defense of lender liability and unfair business claims.
In addition, as a business and commercial litigator, Brian represents both national and international corporations and governmental entities seeking relief under multi-million dollar contracts, small businesses embroiled in disputes with competitors, lenders seeking relief under promissory notes, and individuals who find themselves entangled in the legal system through various commercial and business endeavors. In doing so, Brian zealously represents clients in litigation in the Connecticut state and federal courts, and disputes before the American Arbitration Association ( AAA ) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ( FINRA ).
The range of Brian's experience speaks volumes of his practice. In the past several years, he has represented governmental agencies in litigation centered around the redevelopment of the City of Hartford and in a contract dispute with a supplier of heating and cooling services to state agencies, brokers in securities arbitration disputes, banking institutions seeking the recovery of millions of dollars under promissory notes, a corporation accused of trademark infringement in the Connecticut federal courts, individuals in partnership dissolution actions, and a variety of businesses and individuals in between. In every instance, Brian, the author of various articles in state and national legal publications, brings a well-developed base of knowledge and a premium on efficiency to protect and defend the interests of his clients.
The Courts Cast an Eye on Mortgage Lending
Scotsman Guide, 07/01/2014
News & Events
Firm Attorneys Recognized as 2015 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
|Reported Cases||Representative Matters: Appellate Court Affirms Judgment of Foreclosure by Sale; In Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee v. Heather M. Bliss, 159 Conn. App. 483 (2015), the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of foreclosure by sale Halloran & Sage secured on behalf of the plaintiff in the trial court. In doing so, the Court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff lacked standing because a witness at trial could not say, in specific terms, when the blank endorsement had been appended to the note the plaintiff held and produced. According to the Appellate Court, the record evidence as a whole confirmed the plaintiff's standing. The Court also rejected the defendant's argument that certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act should be applied retroactively to defeat the enforceability of the mortgage. The Court's ready rejection of this question of first impression in Connecticut was predicated on numerous cases from other jurisdictions which interpreted the Act's plain language and held otherwise. Brian Rich handled this matter in the trial court and Laura Zaino handled it on appeal.; CT Appellate Court Overturns Dismissal in Foreclosure Case and Bolsters Law Relating to Requirements of Legal Standing; 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 standing 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 standing in the absence of any evidence presented to the contrary and 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 and clarity of Connecticut's treatment of these issues.; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al v. Torres, D. Conn., 3:12-CV-01573; Successfully had federal action remanded to the state court for improper removal.; Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. v. Dacon Logistics, LLC, et al, D. Conn., 3:13-CV-00093; Actively representing aluminum recycling company in action against supplier; also negotiated resolution involving release of cargo detained in Indian port.; Century Metal Recycling Private Limited v. Metal Worldwide, Inc., et al, D.Md., 1:12-CV-02650; Actively representing metal recycling client in claims for breach of contract and fraud by a supplier.; Caires v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., D. Conn., 2012 WL 3000357; Successfully represented financial institution in having all federal claims against it dismissed.; BNY Western Trust v. Roman, et al, D. Conn., 3:11-CV-00274; Represented client in connection with the dismissal of federal claims brought against it.; Paltauf v. Kanowitz, et al, D. Conn., 3:10-CV-02052; Successfully represented national financial institution in the dismissal of claims based on the application of national banking laws.; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Michael Povcio, FST-CV-09-5010388 (J.D. of Stamford); Successfully defeated borrower's claims relating to alleged lack of standing and inability to foreclose after evidentiary hearing.; Bank of America, N.A. v. Gary Dilnea, FST-CV-CA-501073-S (J.D. of Stamford); Successfully defeated borrower's motion to dismiss based on alleged lack of standing and jurisdictional grounds after evidentiary hearing.; JP Morgan Chase Bank v. S. Park Apts., LLC; Obtained a judgment of liability, and subsequently a judgment of strict foreclosure, on a commercial loan, defeating the borrower's assertion of special defenses that foreclosure was inappropriate because of errors in tax and insurance escrow calculations. This case, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank v. S. Park Apts., LLC, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2448 (Conn. Super. 2009) was tried before the Superior Court in August of 2009 and is currently being appealed by the Defendant.; Collins v. Olin Corp., 418 F. Supp.2d 34 (D. Conn. 2006); Assisted in obtaining summary judgment and dismissal of action by homeowners against municipality for alleged contamination.; Hernandez v. Hines Interest Limited Partnership, 2005 WL 1761059 (Conn. Super. 2005); Obtained partial summary judgment on behalf of security services company in third party action by property owner alleging negligence. Through briefing and argument, Halloran & Sage obtained summary disposition of the defendant's apportionment complaint against Securitas, despite a split in the Connecticut courts as to the disposition of the issue, and also obtained summary judgment as to all counts brought by the plaintiff.; New Colt Holding Corp. v. RJG Holdings of Florida, Inc., 312 F.Supp.2d 195 (D.Conn. 2004); Assisted in obtaining partial summary judgment in trademark litigation.|