Danzig v. PDPA, INC.
11 A.3d 153
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- PDPA executed a $1.3 million note secured by two Glastonbury parcels; promissory note signed by PDPA, with Patricia Dadi and Ahmed A. Dadi executing a guaranty.
- Note matured May 8, 2008; foreclosure action filed July 28, 2008 seeking strict foreclosure and deficiency against PDPA and the Dadis.
- PDPA and the Dadis appeared; PDPA defaulted for failure to disclose a defense; attempts were made to substitute Ahmed as record owner.
- PDPA transferred the mortgaged property to Ahmed on December 5, 2008; Ahmed moved to be substituted as defendant; court eventually named Ahmed as record owner.
- Plaintiff amended the complaint after Ahmed’s ownership shift; PDPA sought to plead after the amended complaint but had been defaulted; court granted summary judgment for plaintiff in June 2009 and rendered a foreclosure by sale; PDPA appealed, challenging standing and the denial of its right to plead to the amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal foreclosure | PDPA lacks standing; no legal/economic interest in the mortgaged premises | PDPA has potential defenses affecting deficiency proceeding | PDPA has standing to appeal |
| Finality of judgment | Foreclosure judgment determined method and amount, thus final | Appeal premature since deficiency may follow | Judgment was final and subject to appeal |
| Right to plead after amendment | Amendment after default allowed; discretion to limit pleading | PDPA entitled to respond under Practice Book § 10-61 | Court properly exercised discretion not to permit responsive pleading after amendment |
| Effect of amendment and substitution on proceedings | Amendment compelled by transfer; substitution did not vacate prior ruling | Amendment should open new issues against PDPA | Amendment did not require opening prior judgment; proper discretion applied |
Key Cases Cited
- New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 52 Conn.App. 69 (1999) (courts address amendment after default and timing of pleadings)
- Mazulis v. Zeldner, 116 Conn. 314 (1933) (amendments after trial may be allowed if they substantially change action)
- Webster Bank v. Zak, 71 Conn.App. 550 (2002) (amendment to name new titleholder; court limits to substitution without vacating judgment)
- Vignot v. Bank of Mystic, 32 Conn.App. 309 (1993) (deficiency hearing limited; not a separate action from foreclosure)
- Capp Industries, Inc. v. Schoenberg, 104 Conn.App. 101 (2007) (foreclosure judgment final when method and amount determined)