Falls Mill of Vernon Condominium Ass'n v. Sudsbury
128 Conn. App. 314
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Falls Mill of Vernon Condominium Association, Inc. forecloses a statutory lien on property encumbered by Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Connecticut’s mortgage.
- Writ of summons named Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Connecticut, c/o CT Corporation System as agent; service occurred on the agent.
- Beneficial defaulted for failure to appear; plaintiff moved for judgment of strict foreclosure.
- July 21, 2008, court rendered judgment of strict foreclosure; title vested in plaintiff Sept. 25, 2008; certificate recorded Oct. 3, 2008.
- Defendant filed motion to open the judgment on Oct. 26, 2009 alleging lack of notice to its Illinois address; trial court initially denied then found no authority to open.
- Court held that it lacked authority to open the judgment under § 49-15(a) because title became absolute well before the motion to open.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could open a strict foreclosure judgment after title became absolute. | N/A | Motion to open based on lack of proper notice. | § 49-15(a) precludes opening once title is absolute; court proper to deny. |
| Whether notice deficiencies to a nonappearing defendant affect the appeal period. | Failure of notice to Illinois address should toll appeal. | Missed notice to nonappearing party should trigger stay/appeal timing. | Notice to a nonappearing defendant does not affect the running of the appeal period under Practice Book §63-1(b). |
| Whether §49-15(a)(2) exception applies to this case. | Exception could permit opening with consent of all parties and subsequent restoration. | Exception not satisfied; plaintiff did not consent to opening; other conditions unmet. | Inapplicable; plaintiff did not agree and motion filed outside the four-month/30-day windows. |
| Whether the court erred in treating notice to the registered agent as sufficient for jurisdictional purposes. | Agent notice suffices; Illinois address issues are irrelevant to jurisdiction. | Agent notice should be viewed as the notice for procedural purposes. | Not material to jurisdiction; opening authority remains governed by §49-15(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251 (Conn. 1998) (purpose of §49-15(a) to limit mortgagor challenges after redemption)
- Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Waterfield, 102 Conn. App. 277 (Conn. App. 2007) (plenary review; four-month rule does not apply to open judgments when appropriate)
- Langewisch v. New England Residential Services, Inc., 113 Conn. App. 290 (Conn. App. 2009) (appeal period when motion to open is filed after judgment)
- Kim v. Magnotta, 249 Conn. 94 (Conn. 1999) (distinguishes substantive vs. jurisdictional authority; §52-212a constraints)