JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Eldon
144 Conn. App. 260
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- JPMorgan Chase (as successor to Washington Mutual) sued Eldon in 2010 to foreclose a mortgage on property in Weston, alleging it held the note and Eldon was in default.
- Eldon served requests for admission, interrogatories, and production; JPMorgan sought protective orders which were denied; the court extended the 30‑day admission deadline to commence on December 28, 2010.
- JPMorgan missed the extended deadline and its denials to the requests for admission were filed after the deadline; Eldon moved for summary judgment based on deemed admissions that JPMorgan lacked interest and the loan had been paid.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Eldon in May 2011, concluding the admissions were deemed admitted and JPMorgan failed to present evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.
- JPMorgan filed motions to open the judgment, to reargue, and to amend its responses; the trial court denied all three on grounds of lack of compelling equitable reason, untimeliness, and because the additional evidence was not newly discovered.
- On appeal, the court limited review to whether those denials were abuses of discretion and affirmed the trial court: JPMorgan’s errors were not sufficient grounds to reopen, reargue, or permit amending after final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to open judgment | JPMorgan: Responses were timely because court’s discovery orders and notice caused confusion/implicit extensions; mistake excusable (equity) | Eldon: Admissions deemed admitted for failure to timely respond; no equitable basis to relieve JPMorgan; plaintiff had opportunity to timely act | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion — plaintiff’s mistake was not a compelling equitable ground and it failed to present evidence at summary judgment |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to reargue | JPMorgan: Presented affidavit and docs contradicting admissions and argued sanction disproportionate; alleged hearing new facts | Eldon: Arguments were previously available; reargument is not a second bite; evidence not newly discovered | Denial affirmed: evidence was not newly discovered and arguments were a forbidden collateral attack/second bite |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying permission to amend admissions under Practice Book §13-24 | JPMorgan: Allowing amendment would serve the merits, no prejudice to Eldon, and correct plainly false admissions | Eldon: Amendment would be untimely, prejudice by reopening resolved merits, and reward lack of diligence | Denial affirmed: wide discretion to deny amendment after final judgment; amendment would unfairly delay and re-litigate decided merits |
| Whether the denials were an unreasonable, disproportionate discovery sanction in foreclosure | JPMorgan: Court orders were unclear and sanctions harsh given foreclosure context | Eldon: Sanction (summary judgment) followed from deemed admissions after deadline; plaintiff failed to timely challenge | Court declined to review merits of original sanction (summary judgment) because JPMorgan failed to timely appeal that decision; appellate review limited to motions to open/reargue/amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (trial court’s discretion to open judgment; appellate review limited to abuse of discretion)
- Worth v. Korta, 132 Conn. App. 154 (limits on appeals from motions to open filed after twenty days)
- Usowski v. Jacobson, 267 Conn. 73 (standards for discovery‑sanction review: clarity of order, violation, proportionality)
- Kelley v. Tomas, 66 Conn. App. 146 (amendments to requests for admission allowed pre‑final adjudication; contrast to post‑judgment amendments)