165 Conn. App. 144
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- HSBC Bank sued Camille Lahr and her co-defendant husband, Charles Lahr, in foreclosure on a Stratford property, alleging default on a mortgage and seeking strict foreclosure and related relief.
- The plaintiff obtained defaults against both Camille (for failure to plead) and Charles (for failure to appear); plaintiff moved for judgment of strict foreclosure.
- Camille filed a suggestion of death noting Charles died before judgment and cited General Statutes § 52-599, urging the case be stayed until substitution of an executor or administrator.
- The trial court entered judgment of strict foreclosure on August 18, 2014; Camille later moved to open that judgment arguing the proceeding should have paused after the suggestion of death until substitution under § 52-599.
- The trial court denied the motion to open; on appeal the court affirmed, holding § 52-600 (action does not abate when one of multiple defendants dies and the cause survives against the others) allowed the foreclosure to proceed against Camille without substitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suggestion of death required stay/abatement until substitution under § 52-599 | HSBC: § 52-325 (lis pendens) and procedural posture meant substitution unnecessary; proceedings could continue | Lahr: Filing suggestion of death invoked § 52-599 requiring court to stay until substitution of decedent’s personal representative | Court: § 52-600 controls where multiple defendants exist; action does not abate and court properly denied motion to open |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to open judgment | HSBC: trial court acted within discretion to proceed | Lahr: judgment was improper because statute required pause for substitution | Court: No abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed |
| Whether lis pendens affected need for substitution | HSBC: recorded lis pendens made further substitution unnecessary to bind successors | Lahr: substitution should precede further proceedings despite lis pendens | Court: did not base ruling on lis pendens; relied on § 52-600 to permit continuation against surviving defendant |
| Standard of review for motion to open | HSBC: deference to trial court discretion | Lahr: urged plenary review based on statutory interpretation | Court: abuse of discretion standard appropriate; affirmed on statutory ground (§ 52-600) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rocque v. DeMilo & Co., 85 Conn. App. 512 (Conn. App. 2004) (death of one of multiple defendants does not abate proceedings against surviving defendants under § 52-600)
- Warner v. Lancia, 46 Conn. App. 150 (Conn. App. 1997) (action may proceed against surviving defendant despite lack of substitution of executrix)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Thomas, 151 Conn. App. 790 (Conn. App. 2014) (motion to open judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Russo, 148 Conn. App. 302 (Conn. App. 2014) (addresses foreclosure procedure and appellate review standards)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn, 148 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2014) (discussing interplay between equitable foreclosure doctrines and statutory requirements)
- Studer v. Studer, 320 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2016) (appellate affirmance may rest on different grounds than trial court)
- Corsino v. Telesca, 32 Conn. App. 627 (Conn. App. 1993) (notice of lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers)