204 Conn.App. 433
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- 2007: Raymond Pouncey executed an adjustable‑rate note secured by a mortgage on property in Killingworth; the loan was modified in 2013.
- 2015: Lender (First Niagara) sent a default/demand letter; debt was accelerated and foreclosure commenced; First Niagara later merged into KeyBank, the substituted plaintiff.
- Defendants filed an amended answer asserting seven special defenses (estoppel, promissory estoppel, unclean hands, breach of covenant of good faith, unconscionability, gross negligence, etc.), alleging post‑origination misconduct including payment misapplication and wrongful delay in modification negotiations.
- KeyBank moved for summary judgment as to liability with an affidavit establishing default and possession of the note; defendants initially failed to oppose and the court granted summary judgment.
- Defendants later moved to reargue, to open the summary judgment (submitting affidavits and exhibits), and to reargue the denial of the motion to open based on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Blowers; the trial court denied relief and entered a judgment of strict foreclosure.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it based its rulings on evidentiary submissions and Blowers was inapplicable to the procedural posture here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendants’ motion to reargue the denial of their motion to open summary judgment in light of Blowers | Court reasonably denied relief after reviewing parties’ evidentiary submissions; Blowers does not mandate opening here | Blowers changed the law so post‑origination misconduct alleged in special defenses is legally sufficient and required opening | No abuse of discretion; Blowers inapplicable given different procedural posture and the court relied on evidence when denying the motion to open |
| Whether the defendants’ special defenses were legally sufficient to defeat summary judgment | Plaintiff argued the evidence showed default and no genuine issue of material fact; special defenses were insufficient as pleaded | Defendants argued special defenses alleging postdefault misconduct relate to enforcement and are legally sufficient under Blowers | Court found defendants did not present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue in response to summary judgment; on appeal this factual/evidentiary determination stands |
| Proper standard of review for denial of motions to open/reargue | Abuse of discretion review; trial court’s discretionary rulings entitled to deference | Defendants urged de novo review because of alleged misapplication of Blowers | Abuse of discretion review applies; appellate court deferred to trial court’s reasonable conclusions |
| Whether the trial court erred in striking the counterclaim | Plaintiff: counterclaim untimely after summary judgment; strike proper | Defendants: argued on appeal but conceded at argument that it was untimely; did not brief issue | Issue deemed abandoned for inadequate briefing; no review granted |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn. v. Blowers, 332 Conn. 656 (2019) (Clarified that certain allegations of postdefault misconduct—e.g., misconduct that increases debt, impedes curing default, or reneges on modifications—can relate directly to enforcement and be legally sufficient defenses in foreclosure actions)
- Thompson v. Orcutt, 257 Conn. 301 (2001) (Recognized that equitable defenses may relate to enforcement of a note or mortgage)
- Wachovia Mortgage, FSB v. Toczek, 196 Conn. App. 1 (2020) (Explains standards for motions to reargue and that appellate review of motions to open/reargue is for abuse of discretion)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Eichten, 184 Conn. App. 727 (2018) (Discussed legal sufficiency of special defenses in foreclosure context and was cited by the trial court)