Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. McCarthy, 204 Conn.App. 330

Connecticut Housing Finance Authority filed to foreclose on property owned by Susann T. McCarthy; McCarthy sought foreclosure mediation but failed to complete premediation requirements.
Court entered default for failure to plead and, on August 21, 2017, rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure fixing debt at $175,010.46 and setting a law day; McCarthy did not appeal that judgment.
McCarthy filed eight successive motions to open the judgment (and multiple petitions to be reenrolled in mediation), sometimes granted to extend law days while she sought a modification or lump-sum reinstatement.
Beginning in November 2018 she first disputed specific reinstatement/escrow figures and later sought itemized accounting and mediation to resolve alleged overcharges.
The trial court denied the eighth motion to open and McCarthy’s second petition for reinclusion in mediation, concluding she failed to show the required ‘‘good cause’’ and that the debt amount had already been finally determined.
On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to open or the petition for reinclusion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to open judgment under Conn. Gen. Stat. §49-15 — was denial an abuse of discretion?	McCarthy failed to show good cause; the judgment already fixed the debt and she had numerous postjudgment opportunities.	McCarthy had obtained funds to reinstate and disputed the accuracy of the servicer’s reinstatement figures, so equity favored opening.	Denied — court did not abuse its discretion; McCarthy couldn’t use §49-15 to relitigate the judgment and had multiple chances to reinstate or modify.
Can a §49-15 motion be used to challenge the underlying foreclosure judgment?	The motion cannot substitute for a timely appeal and cannot rest solely on contention that the judgment was erroneous.	McCarthy sought to dispute the debt amount via the motion to open.	Held that a motion to open filed long after judgment cannot be used as a substitute for appeal; the scope of review is limited to abuse of discretion.
Petition for reinclusion in foreclosure mediation under Conn. Gen. Stat. §49-31l(c)(5) — should mediation be ordered after prior failed attempts?	Mediation would be futile; prior mediations failed and the debt amount was finally determined by the court.	Mediation could resolve the disputed reinstatement figure and circumstances changed because McCarthy had funds.	Denied — no good cause shown; prior mediation attempts were unsuccessful and the plaintiff would not discuss the debt amount further.

Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Sullivan, 216 Conn. 341 (1990) (sets the §49-15 conditions and requires good cause to open strict-foreclosure judgments)
Connecticut National Bank v. Zuckerman, 29 Conn. App. 541 (1992) (movant bears burden of showing good cause to open a foreclosure judgment)
USAA Fed. Sav. Bank v. Gianetti, 197 Conn. App. 814 (2020) (holding that opening a judgment cannot be used solely to relitigate alleged errors in the original foreclosure judgment)
Bank of America, N.A. v. Grogins, 189 Conn. App. 477 (2019) (appeal from denial of motion to open is limited to whether trial court abused its discretion and not to merits of the underlying judgment)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Morawska, 165 Conn. App. 421 (2016) (for reinclusion after prior mediations, movant must show parties likely to benefit and a material change in circumstances)
Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn. 155 (1992) (standard of review for abuse of discretion; deference to trial court’s equitable decisions)