Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Peterson
158 A.3d 405
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Countrywide (later Green Tree) sued Alyssa Peterson in 2009 for foreclosure on her Middletown property; summary judgment on liability granted in 2010.
- Court entered a judgment of strict foreclosure on December 22, 2014, fixing the debt at $350,051.71 and setting law days to begin January 26, 2015.
- On January 26, 2015 (law day), Peterson filed a motion to open the judgment, arguing the debt should be reduced because private mortgage insurance (PMI) either had paid or would pay part of the lender’s loss and she had paid premiums. The court denied the motion the same day.
- Peterson then filed a motion to reargue on February 17, 2015; the court denied it on February 19, 2015. She appealed both denials.
- Trial court gave no reasons for either denial. Peterson submitted no documentary proof of the PMI claim before the trial court and did not raise the issue prior to the foreclosure judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have opened the strict foreclosure judgment to recalculate debt to reflect PMI proceeds | The motion was untimely/insufficient; court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief | PMI proceeds (and defendant’s premium payments) reduce the debt; court should reopen to recalculate | Court affirmed: defendant failed to show abuse of discretion or evidence; motion properly denied |
| Whether denial of the motions is moot because the motion was not placed on short calendar and title vested | The short-calendar failure divested court of authority; appeal moot because title vested | Court had authority to act on law day; denial preserved appellant’s rights; not moot | Court held appeal not moot; trial court reasonably declined to calendar and properly ruled on law day |
| Whether appeal is unripe because no deficiency judgment yet entered | Claim about deficiency calculation is premature | Recalculation of the debt set in the foreclosure judgment is ripe for review | Court held appeal ripe as it challenges the already-determined debt amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (2008) (standard—opening a judgment is discretionary and reviewed narrowly)
- Alix v. Leech, 45 Conn. App. 1 (1997) (timeliness limits ability to challenge foreclosure judgment)
- Gibbs v. Spinner, 103 Conn. App. 502 (2007) (standards for motions to reargue; not a second bite at the apple)
- Connecticut Nat. Bank v. N.E. Owen II, Inc., 22 Conn. App. 468 (1990) (failure to assert debt-related defense before foreclosure judgment forecloses reopening)
- TD Banknorth, N.A. v. White Water Mountain Resorts of Conn., Inc., 133 Conn. App. 536 (2012) (appealability of denial of motion to open a foreclosure judgment)
- First Bank v. Simpson, 199 Conn. 368 (1986) (deficiency-judgment procedure presumes debt established by foreclosure judgment)