Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bertrand
140 Conn. App. 646
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company forecloses a residential mortgage on 12 Jeffrey Alan Drive, Manchester, against defendant David P. Bertrand.
- Bertrand defaulted on the $180,000 note secured by the mortgage; plaintiff moved for default and for judgment of strict foreclosure in 2009.
- Multiple motions and filings followed, including a defense that plaintiff lacked standing and requests for discovery, which led to a protective order favoring plaintiff in August 2010.
- By June 2011, plaintiff sought judgment of strict foreclosure; Bertrand appeared but had not filed a substantive answer or defenses.
- At a June 27, 2011 hearing, the court declared default on Bertrand for failure to plead and proceeded to render a judgment of strict foreclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective order was an abuse of discretion | Court acted within its discretion to limit burdensome discovery. | Protective order foreclosed necessary discovery to determine facts. | No reversible abuse; record insufficient to show error. |
| Whether the court properly defaulted Bertrand for failure to plead | Bertrand failed to plead timely; court had authority to default under rules. | He intended to plead and believed he had seven extra days; default was error. | Court had authority; no abuse given chronic delay and conduct; default affirmed. |
| Whether the court improperly refused to accept Bertrand's in-court filing of an answer | Defendant offered to file an answer; clerk filing rules applied; e-filing required. | Court should accept the pleading under Practice Book 17-32(b) and 52-121. | Court did not abuse discretion; 17-32(b) applies to clerks; 17-33 foreclosure provision allowed simultaneous judgment. |
| Whether Bertrand's due process challenges were properly raised | Claims not adequately argued or preserved for appellate review. | Due process violations undermined foreclosure proceedings. | Claims not properly raised; decline to consider under practice rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- West Haven Lumber Co. v. Sentry Construction Corp., 117 Conn. App. 465 (2009) (courts' broad authority to maintain orderly docket and grant protective orders)
- Coppola v. Coppola, 243 Conn. 657 (1998) (disposition preferred on merits but liberally interprets rules to prevent injustice)
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (trial courts have inherent sanctions authority for dilatory conduct)
- Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Burton, 81 Conn. App. 662 (2004) (foreclosure procedures under 17-32(b) versus clerk's authority in default)
- Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 607 (1980) (courts may consider untimely pleadings under certain conditions)
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48 (1983) (discretion of discovery rulings reviewed for abuse)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Angle, 284 Conn. 322 (2007) (standard of reviewing court's discretionary rulings in foreclosure)