HIGHGATE CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, INC. v. Miller
129 Conn. App. 429
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Highgate Condominium Association, Inc. foreclosed a statutory lien on a Watertown condominium unit under General Statutes § 47-258.
- U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, was named and served in the foreclosure action.
- Judgment of strict foreclosure was entered on April 27, 2009, with law days to begin June 30, 2009.
- On July 7, 2009, plaintiff notified that title to the property had become absolute in the plaintiff.
- Defendant later moved to dismiss for improper service and moved to open the judgment, which the court granted without explicit jurisdiction findings.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to open the judgment once title was absolute and that proper jurisdiction findings were necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had authority to open the judgment after title vested | Miller; title became absolute in Highgate; court lacked authority to open | Miller; service issues; court could open under §49-15(a) | Court improperly opened; lacked required jurisdiction findings. |
| Whether the court needed a hearing on service to determine jurisdiction | Disputed service; hearing required to establish jurisdiction | Record allegedly showed proper service; no hearing needed | Evidentiary hearing required; opening without jurisdiction findings invalid. |
| Whether the court violated §49-15(a) by opening after title became absolute | Statutory prohibition barred opening after vesting | Argued due to jurisdictional question; opening permissible if jurisdiction existed | Court erred; cannot open without jurisdiction determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Argent Mortgage Co., LLC v. Huertas, 288 Conn. 568 (2008) (strict foreclosure: if jurisdiction exists, opening moot; proper relief absent)
- First National Bank of Chicago v. Luecken, 66 Conn.App. 606 (2001) (opening may be allowed only to challenge lack of jurisdiction)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (2009) (jurisdictional facts require evidentiary hearing if disputed)
- Coughlin v. Waterbury, 61 Conn.App. 310 (2001) (when facts are disputed, due process requires hearing)
- Myrtle Mews Assn., Inc. v. Bordes, 125 Conn.App. 12 (2010) (judgment opening is appealable when challenging court's power)
- Novak v. Levin, 287 Conn. 71 (2008) (exception to finality for jurisdictional challenges to opening)