203 Conn.App. 8
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff bank sued to foreclose a mortgage on property at 140 Seymour Rd., Woodbridge after Russell Madison defaulted on the note. The original mortgage schedule described the property but (according to plaintiff) omitted an abutting parcel.
- Plaintiff filed an amended two‑count complaint: count one (foreclosure) appended an amended schedule adding the abutting parcel; count two sought reformation of the mortgage to correct the property description.
- Defendants answered, denying or leaving plaintiff to its proof on key allegations; they demanded production of the original note and evidence of a valid assignment and proper default notice.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to liability only on the foreclosure count (it did not move on reformation). The court granted summary judgment as to liability and later entered a judgment of strict foreclosure on count one.
- At the foreclosure hearing plaintiff orally moved for judgment on the reformation claim; the court reserved, then later granted the oral motion although plaintiff had produced no evidence supporting reformation. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted plaintiff's oral motion for judgment on the reformation claim | Plaintiff argued its filings (and alleged mutual intent to encumber 140 Seymour) supported reformation and that the prior summary judgment implicitly covered the amended complaint | Defendants argued plaintiff produced no evidence, never moved for summary judgment on reformation, and defendants were not in default on that count | Reversed: court erred — plaintiff presented no clear, convincing evidence; no summary judgment was sought on reformation; judgment on reformation must be vacated |
| Whether the default notice satisfied mortgage paragraph 22 (must specify a cure date at least 30 days after notice) for summary judgment on foreclosure liability | Plaintiff argued the notice, dated Feb 22, 2016 and stating cure required "within Thirty Days of this notice," substantially complied and gave defendants adequate notice | Defendants argued the notice failed to specify the particular date by which default had to be cured, so it did not meet the mortgage's express requirement | Affirmed: notice substantially complied; dated reference plus "within 30 days of this notice" was sufficiently clear to satisfy paragraph 22 for summary judgment purposes |
| Whether a foreclosure judgment may stand while a reformation claim remains pending when both are pursued together | Plaintiff implicitly maintained foreclosure could proceed (and relied on summary judgment as to liability) | Defendants argued the property to be foreclosed must be fixed before entering foreclosure judgment | Reversed foreclosure judgment: when foreclosure and reformation are joined, the reformation claim must be adjudicated before or with foreclosure; vacating reformation required vacating strict foreclosure judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Tr. Co. v. Perez, 146 Conn. App. 833 (Conn. App. 2013) (reformation requires clear, convincing evidence; reformation affects foreclosure)
- Saunders v. Stigers, 62 Conn. App. 138 (Conn. App. 2001) (default notice need only substantially comply with mortgage notice provisions)
- Fidelity Bank v. Krenisky, 72 Conn. App. 700 (Conn. App. 2002) (applying substantial compliance standard for cure/notice language)
- Fed. Home Loan Mtg. Corp. v. Bardinelli, 39 Conn. App. 786 (Conn. App. 1995) (notice stating cure required "within thirty days from the date of this letter" substantially complied)
- Century Mtge. Co. v. George, 35 Conn. App. 326 (Conn. App. 1994) (reformation may be denied where mortgage description refers to different property)
- Hudson City Sav. Bank v. Hellman, 196 Conn. App. 836 (Conn. App. 2020) (standards for summary judgment and foreclosure prima facie case)
- Magee Ave., LLC v. Lima Ceramic Tile, LLC, 183 Conn. App. 575 (Conn. App. 2018) (court may not grant summary judgment sua sponte; motion must be filed by a party)