Bank of New York, Trustee v. Savvidis, 165 A.3d 1266

In 2003 the Savvidises executed a $550,000 note secured by a mortgage on 106B Comstock Hill Ave., Norwalk; Bank of New York (trustee) later brought foreclosure.
Multiple foreclosure judgments were entered over years and repeatedly stayed by successive Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings by the defendants.
After a June 8, 2015 judgment of strict foreclosure, the defendants filed another bankruptcy; the bankruptcy court later lifted the stay on January 7, 2016, allowing reentry and recalculation of law days.
The plaintiff submitted an updated debt calculation (March 2016) with an affidavit by Nationstar’s document execution specialist showing a lower total due than a 2014 calculation previously submitted.
The trial court questioned the decrease but noted the updated figure was more favorable to the defendants; defendants’ counsel pointed to inconsistency between affidavits but declined to present contrary evidence.
The trial court reentered the judgment, relied on the March 2016 affidavit to set the outstanding debt, and reset law days; defendants appealed the evidentiary ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could rely on the plaintiff’s updated affidavit of debt when it conflicted with a prior affidavit	Updated affidavit is presumptively reliable; court may accept unchallenged submissions	Inconsistency with prior affidavit undermines reliability; court should not rely on it without an evidentiary hearing	Trial court did not abuse discretion: defendants failed to show prejudice and offered no evidence to contest the affidavit
Whether the trial court abused discretion by declining an evidentiary hearing	No hearing necessary where defendant offers no proffer or contradictory evidence	A hearing was required because of material inconsistency between affidavits	No abuse: defendants expressly declined to present evidence, so court reasonably declined a hearing
Whether any error in admitting the affidavit was harmful	Any admission was harmless because the updated calculation reduced the debt and defendants showed no substantial prejudice	Admission was harmful because of conflicting figures	No substantial prejudice shown; appellate review requires both abuse and substantial prejudice, which is absent
Whether equitable discretion warranted reversal	Foreclosure equity matters rest with trial court discretion; acceptance of unchallenged evidentiary submissions is proper	Trial court’s exercise of discretion was improper given inconsistent affidavits	Court’s equitable discretion was properly exercised; judgment affirmed

National City Mortgage Co. v. Stoecker, 92 Conn. App. 787 (standard for overturning evidentiary rulings requires abuse of discretion and showing of substantial prejudice)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Angle, 284 Conn. 322 (foreclosure is equitable and trial court has discretion to determine relief)
U.S. Bank National Assn., Trustee v. Works, 160 Conn. App. 49 (bankruptcy petition operates as automatic stay of foreclosure action)
America’s Wholesale Lender v. Pagano, 87 Conn. App. 474 (identifies trade name relationship for parties in mortgage contexts)