Attorney Winkel successfully argued to have to foreclosure judgments on 2 separate developed commercial property located in New London and Plainfield reversed. The Appellate Court agreed with Attorney Winkel’s argument that his clients’ claim, that there was a loan modification agreement between the parties that the Plaintiff bank failed to comply with, was sufficient to withstand the Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike. The Court agreed that the special defense pled attacked the validity or enforcement of the subject notes and mortgages between the parties and that the lower court improperly struck the same, The Court also agreed with Attorney Winkel that the lower court’s subsequent decision to grant the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment as to liability therefore must be reversed because the lower court did granted the same without considering the improperly stricken special defense. The Appellate Court ordered that the judgment of foreclosures be reversed and the cases remanded with direction to deny the plaintiff’s motions to strike the defendants’ loan modification special defenses and the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. TD Bank, N.A. v. M.J. Holdings, LLC, 143 Conn.App. 322 (2013); TD Bank, N.A. v. J and M Holdings, LLC, 143 Conn.App. 340
