225 Conn.App. 455
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Defendant Bretoux owned property subject to a mortgage originally held by New Century Mortgage and later assigned to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.
- After defaulting on the mortgage in 2018, Bretoux submitted 25 loan modification applications to the loan servicer, Carrington Mortgage Services, all of which were denied.
- Plaintiff commenced foreclosure proceedings in 2019, after Bretoux’s attempts to modify the loan failed.
- Bretoux raised special defenses, including unclean hands (alleged misconduct in the handling of modification requests) and estoppel (arguing plaintiff should not benefit from increased debt due to its own conduct).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff as to liability, rejected the unclean hands defense for insufficient evidence, and entered a judgment of foreclosure by sale, relying solely on plaintiff's affidavit of debt despite defendant's specific objection to the debt amount.
- On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment on liability but reversed and remanded on the debt amount, holding the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing once defendant specifically challenged the debt based on estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unclean Hands Defense—Summary Judgment | Defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence beyond his affidavit to show willful misconduct or improper denial of loan modifications. | Repeated denials and encouragement to reapply demonstrated a pattern of unclean hands that prevented curing default. | Defense lacked evidentiary basis; summary judgment for plaintiff affirmed on liability. |
| Affidavit of Debt—Foreclosure Judgment | Affidavit of debt is admissible since defendant provided no evidence or request for hearing; no genuine dispute as to debt amount. | Defendant specifically objected to portion of debt as wrongly inflated by plaintiff’s conduct in modification process; requested exclusion of certain fees and interest. | Trial court erred in relying solely on affidavit; evidentiary hearing required since specific objection was interposed. |
| Burden of Proving Debt Amount | Plaintiff met burden by submitting unchallenged affidavit, since defendant did not support objection with evidence. | Plaintiff bears burden to prove debt amount at hearing once defense is interposed; defendant need not present evidence to force a hearing. | Plaintiff has burden; affidavit procedure unavailable once valid defense interposed, irrespective of defendant’s evidence. |
| Requiring Evidentiary Hearing | Proper only if defendant specifically requests it or provides supporting evidence. | No formal request needed—specific and articulated objection to debt amount suffices. | Specific objection triggers hearing obligation, no evidentiary proffer or request required by defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Mangiafico, 198 Conn. App. 722 (clarifies standards for summary judgment and special defenses in foreclosure).
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Eichten, 184 Conn. App. 727 (details what constitutes sufficient evidence for unclean hands in foreclosure context).
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Malick, 347 Conn. 155 (rules on when affidavit of debt is sufficient and when a hearing is required if debt amount challenged).
- Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, Inc., 252 Conn. 789 (bare or conclusory affidavits are insufficient to create a factual dispute for summary judgment).
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Foote, 151 Conn. App. 620 (sets out appellate review and summary judgment standards in foreclosure cases).