Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Scroggin
178 Conn. App. 727
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Chase filed a one-count foreclosure complaint in Dec. 2009 against Daniel Scroggin alleging default on a 2007 note secured by 25 Church Street, Portland.
- Chase obtained a clerk-entered default for Scroggin’s failure to plead on June 16, 2010 and had moved for judgment of strict foreclosure on June 7, 2010.
- On Sept. 8, 2010 Chase filed a six‑count amended complaint adding Bank of America and new theories (equitable subrogation/subordination, unjust enrichment, fraud) and new counts against Scroggin; Scroggin did not object to the amendment then.
- Over ensuing years plaintiffs were substituted multiple times; Scroggin did not move to open the 2010 default and only disclosed a defense and filed answers in Nov. 2015 and April 2016 while plaintiff’s motion for judgment remained pending.
- The trial court declined to give effect to Scroggin’s post-default answers, granted judgment on several counts and entered strict foreclosure; Scroggin appealed.
- The appellate majority reversed the strict foreclosure judgment, holding the amended complaint materially changed the pleaded claims and therefore the 2010 default should have been treated as extinguished so Scroggin’s answer and defenses could be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amended complaint filed after a default extinguishes that default when the amendment materially changes the claims | The amendment did not substantially change the foreclosure claim; defaults remain effective and plaintiff may obtain judgment because defendant did not move to open default | The amended complaint added material new counts and factual/legal theories (equitable subrogation, unjust enrichment, fraud) so the earlier default should be extinguished and defendant entitled to plead | Held for defendant: the amended complaint interjected material new issues and substantially changed the pleadings, so the default should have been treated as extinguished and the defendant’s answer considered; strict foreclosure judgment reversed and remanded |
| Whether § 52-121(a) required the court to accept Scroggin’s post-default pleading before hearing on motion for judgment | Court may refuse late pleadings where other reasons exist (e.g., defendant never moved to open default); § 52-121(a) is not dispositive if the default remains in effect | § 52-121(a) allows filing until court has heard a motion for judgment by default, so the answer should have been accepted if filed before hearing | Not decided by majority (dispositive first issue); trial court had relied on delay and failure to move to open default — dissent held no § 52-121(a) error because defendant never sought to open default and waited five years |
Key Cases Cited
- TD Banknorth, N.A. v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 536 (discusses effect of default as admission and need to disclose defenses in foreclosure)
- Willamette Management Assocs., Inc. v. Palczynski, 134 Conn. App. 58 (amendment that does not substantially change claims does not extinguish prior default)
- Spilke v. Wicklow, 138 Conn. App. 251 (multiple amendments that do not alter substantive allegations do not vacate default)
- Mazulis v. Zeldner, 116 Conn. 314 (if an amendment substantially changes the cause of action, defendant is entitled to plead anew)
- Higgins v. Karp, 243 Conn. 495 (motion to set aside default reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Bertrand, 140 Conn. App. 646 (trial court may have grounds other than timeliness to refuse post-default pleadings)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Cornelius, 170 Conn. App. 104 (court cannot consider defendant’s pleading until default is set aside; § 52-121(a) not automatically controlling)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Talbot, 174 Conn. App. 377 (Practice Book provisions on effect of default and when it may be set aside)
- AJJ Enterprises, LLP v. Jean-Charles, 160 Conn. App. 375 (explains equitable subrogation/subrogation principles)
- Webster Bank v. Zak, 71 Conn. App. 550 (equitable nature of foreclosure and appellate review standard)
