## Facts

- Sonia Syed executed a promissory note and mortgage on residential property in Glastonbury, Connecticut, originally in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, FA (WaMu).
- After WaMu failed, the FDIC (as receiver) transferred WaMu’s assets, including the loan, to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association under a purchase-and-assumption transaction.
- The note contained an allonge stating “Pay to the order of ________ Without Recourse WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA” followed by a stamped facsimile signature “Cynthia Riley,” with the payee line left blank.
- Evidence showed WaMu used Riley’s signature stamp in its business; Riley left WaMu in 2006, and the stamp was applied to Syed’s note years later.
- JPMorgan commenced a strict foreclosure action in 2013, alleging it was the holder of the note and mortgage; the original note bearing the stamped endorsement was produced in the case.
- The loan was later assigned to Christiana Trust (substituted as plaintiff) and then to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (substituted before judgment).
- Syed opposed summary judgment, asserting the stamped endorsement was unauthorized and void, so JPMorgan lacked standing when it filed suit; she also asserted special defenses and a counterclaim tied to that standing theory.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on liability for the plaintiff and entered judgment of strict foreclosure; Syed appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a blank endorsement created by a stamped facsimile signature of a former bank employee can be a valid endorsement under Connecticut’s UCC Article 3, including §§ 42a-3-401 and 42a-3-308.
2. Whether JPMorgan had standing to foreclose as a holder/person entitled to enforce the note when it commenced the action, and whether Syed raised a genuine issue of material fact barring summary judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on liability and the strict foreclosure judgment.
- The stamped facsimile endorsement was valid under § 42a-3-401(b) despite the endorser’s earlier departure from the bank.
- Because the note was endorsed in blank and in JPMorgan’s possession when the action began, JPMorgan was a holder and person entitled to enforce under § 42a-3-301.
- Syed failed to rebut the statutory presumption that signatures are authorized and authentic under § 42a-3-308(a); her showing did not create a genuine dispute of material fact.
- The substitute plaintiffs’ ability to proceed followed from JPMorgan’s enforceable-holder status at commencement.

## Legal Principles

- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-3-401(b), a “signature” on a negotiable instrument may be made by a device (including a stamp) if used with the present intention to authenticate on behalf of the signing entity.
- An institutional endorsement may be effective even if the named individual whose facsimile signature is used is not personally involved at the time, so long as the institution authorized the signature method and intended authentication.
- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-3-301, possession of the original note endorsed in blank supports holder status and the right to enforce, independent of disputes about ownership of the loan.
- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-3-308(a), signatures are presumed authentic and authorized; a defendant must produce competent evidence sufficient to overcome that presumption to avoid summary judgment.
- In foreclosure, standing is established when the plaintiff is the holder/person entitled to enforce at the time the action is commenced; later substitutions may proceed on that basis.

## Conclusion

The court held that a blank endorsement stamped with a facsimile signature could be valid under Article 3 when used with the lender’s intent and authorization, and that possession of the original blank-endorsed note at filing established standing to foreclose; the borrower’s challenge did not create a triable issue defeating summary judgment.


JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Syed, 197 Conn. App. 129, 231 A.3d 286 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020)