Bank of America, N.A. v. Chainani
174 Conn. App. 476
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 2007 Chainani executed a $2,316,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage on New Canaan property; the note was later assigned to plaintiff Bank of America as trustee.
- Plaintiff brought a foreclosure action after Chainani defaulted; Chainani answered denying default and stating insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the debt amount, leaving plaintiff to its proof.
- At trial plaintiff offered two affidavits of debt (Simon and Williams) and the original note and mortgage; the court admitted the affidavits under Practice Book § 23-18(a).
- The Williams affidavit, used to calculate the final balance, claimed the debt was $3,268,499.34; Chainani objected that § 23-18(a) did not apply because he had disputed the debt amount.
- The trial court accepted the affidavit and entered a judgment of strict foreclosure for the amount claimed; Chainani appealed contesting the applicability of § 23-18(a) and the admission of the affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Practice Book § 23-18(a) applied so plaintiff could prove debt by affidavit | § 23-18(a) applies because no defense to the amount of debt was interposed | § 23-18(a) is inapplicable because defendant’s answer denied default and claimed insufficient knowledge of amount, which disputes the amount | Held: Plenary review; § 23-18(a) applies because defendant never timely or specifically interposed a defense to the amount |
| Whether the affidavit was inadmissible hearsay requiring live testimony/cross-examination | Affidavit is admissible under the § 23-18(a) hearsay exception when amount is not contested | Affidavit is hearsay and defendant was denied right to cross-examine because he challenged amount | Held: Admission was proper under § 23-18(a); affidavit not barred as hearsay because no defense to amount was interposed |
| Standard of review for admitting an affidavit under § 23-18(a) | Deferential (abuse of discretion) review | Plenary review (challenge to applicability of hearsay exception) | Held: Legal question whether § 23-18(a) applies is reviewed plenarily; discretionary reasons to exclude would be abuse of discretion |
| Whether defendant’s pleadings (denial of default; insufficient knowledge) constituted a challenge to amount | Plaintiff: those responses do not challenge amount and thus do not prevent use of affidavit | Defendant: such responses were sufficient to bar affidavit admission | Held: Denial of default and a claim of insufficient knowledge are not defenses to the amount; they do not bar § 23-18(a) affidavits |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyers v. Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C., 311 Conn. 282 (clarifies scope of appellate review depends on characterization of trial rulings)
- Weaver v. McKnight, 313 Conn. 393 (whether hearsay exception applies is a legal question reviewed plenarily)
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Mitchell-James, 163 Conn. App. 648 (affidavit of debt is hearsay; exceptions determine admissibility)
- National City Mortgage Co. v. Stoecker, 92 Conn. App. 787 (affidavit inadmissible where defendant sufficiently challenged amounts claimed)
- Connecticut National Bank v. N. E. Owen II, Inc., 22 Conn. App. 468 (claim of insufficient knowledge is not a defense to amount for § 23-18(a))
- Suffield Bank v. Berman, 25 Conn. App. 369 (mathematical challenges need not be disclosed prehearing; liability defenses must be disclosed)
- Busconi v. Dighello, 39 Conn. App. 753 (defense to liability is distinct from defense to amount; only the latter defeats § 23-18(a))
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Strong, 149 Conn. App. 384 (challenges to affiant’s credentials are not defenses to amount)
- Burritt Mutual Savings Bank of New Britain v. Tucker, 183 Conn. 369 (affidavit inadmissible where defendant disputed specific amounts and offered testimony)