Hirsch v. Woermer, 184 Conn. App. 583

Plaintiff Sandra M. Hirsch, trustee, brought a foreclosure action on a mortgage/note (original principal $73,200) secured by Branford real property after defendant William S. Woermer defaulted.
Defendant filed an answer asserting three special defenses: lack of standing, invalid mortgage, and unconscionability (alleging closing attorney later foreclosed, no retainer agreement, and that loan was predatory: ~1-year term, 15% interest, >5% points).
Plaintiff moved to strike all special defenses; the trial court granted the motion to strike the unconscionability defense and later granted plaintiff judgment on the pleadings.
After judgment, Woermer moved to open the judgment and to amend to add a defense/counterclaim under the Connecticut Abusive Home Loan Lending Practices Act (§ 36a-746 et seq.); the court denied both motions and entered a foreclosure-by-sale judgment.
On appeal, Woermer argued (1) the strike of his unconscionability defense was improper and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to open to assert the statutory claim; the Appellate Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant adequately pled unconscionability as a special defense	Hirsch: the pleadings lack facts showing procedural or substantive unconscionability; legal conclusions insufficient	Woermer: loan terms and closing circumstances (same attorney, no retainer) make the loan unconscionable and predatory (15% interest, >5% points, ~1-year term)	Affirmed strike — pleadings failed to allege unfair surprise or factual context (borrower finances, property use, second-mortgage risk) needed to show unconscionability
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to open to add statutory claim (Abusive Home Loan Lending Practices Act)	Hirsch: proposed statutory claim was untimely, the Act is enforced by the Commissioner of Banking and may not provide a private right of action; no new evidence or reason to modify judgment	Woermer: should be allowed to amend to add statutory violation supporting unconscionability; materials attached showed predatory lending context	Affirmed denial — motion to open not required to consider new claims raised after judgment; no showing of newly discovered evidence or good and compelling reason to reopen

Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80 (Conn. 1992) (distinguishes procedural and substantive unconscionability; guides analysis of unfair surprise and oppressive terms)
Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. D’Agostino, 94 Conn. App. 793 (Conn. App. 2006) (bald assertion that an interest rate is unconscionable is insufficient)
Hamm v. Taylor, 180 Conn. 491 (Conn. 1980) (financial circumstances, second-mortgage risk, and income-producing capacity are relevant to unconscionability of interest rates)
R.F. Daddario & Sons, Inc. v. Shelansky, 123 Conn. App. 725 (Conn. App. 2010) (mere claim of unconscionable terms in note and mortgage insufficient to sustain special defense)
U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Blowers, 177 Conn. App. 622 (Conn. App. 2017) (equitable defenses, including unconscionability and usury, recognized in foreclosure context)