347 Conn. 155
Conn.2023Background
- JPMorgan Chase moved for strict foreclosure on Malick's property after he defaulted on a $417,000 note secured by mortgage; the trial court earlier granted summary judgment on liability.
- Chase submitted an affidavit of debt under Practice Book § 23-18(a) stating the amount owed (including interest and taxes); Malick objected, alleging miscalculation of interest and municipal taxes and attaching a year-by-year tax breakdown from town records.
- The trial court twice gave Malick time to produce verified documentation but ultimately accepted Chase’s affidavit figure for interest and entered judgment of strict foreclosure without requiring Chase to present supporting evidence.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding that because Malick had objected to the amounts, § 23-18(a)’s hearsay exception did not apply and the plaintiff had to prove the amount of the debt.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed: it clarified the standard for when § 23-18(a) applies — a defendant must actively interpose a specific, articulated defense to the amount of debt, but need not submit admissible evidence to do so; once such a defense is interposed, the plaintiff retains the burden to prove the debt amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an objection to an affidavit of debt, unsupported by admissible evidence, suffices to defeat the § 23-18(a) hearsay exception | Malick’s objection was insufficient because he failed to produce admissible evidence; § 23-18(a) should still allow affidavit proof | A timely, specific objection challenging interest and taxes interposes a defense and prevents reliance on the affidavit alone | Held: A specific, articulated objection suffices; defendant need not provide admissible evidence to interpose a defense under § 23-18(a) |
| What constitutes a “defense” and to “interpose” one under § 23-18(a) | A defense must be supported by evidence and legal argument before affidavit is excluded | A defense can be interposed by a specific objection that explains why the amount is wrong | Held: "Defense" requires an active, specific legal or factual reason concerning the debt amount; "interpose" broadly includes objection that interferes with affidavit reliance |
| Burden of proof on amount of debt after a defense is interposed | Defendant should be required to prove the infirmity in the affidavit | Once defendant interposes a defense, plaintiff must prove the amount without relying on § 23-18(a) affidavit | Held: Burden remains on the plaintiff to prove the amount once a defense to amount is interposed |
| Whether the trial court properly accepted the affidavit and entered strict foreclosure despite Malick’s objections | Trial court acted properly in accepting affidavit where defendant failed to substantiate alleged errors | Court erred by accepting affidavit without requiring plaintiff to present evidence on disputed amounts | Held: Trial court erred; Appellate Court reversal affirmed — plaintiff must present evidence once defendant interposes a sufficient defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Burritt Mut. Sav. Bank of New Britain v. Tucker, 439 A.2d 396 (Conn. 1981) (defendant’s challenge to principal, interest, taxes, and late charges required plaintiff to prove amounts, not rely solely on affidavit)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Chainani, 166 A.3d 670 (Conn. App. 2017) (discusses when § 23-18(a) hearsay exception applies and need for a defense squarely focused on amount)
- Suffield Bank v. Berman, 594 A.2d 493 (Conn. App. 1991) (defendants’ failure timely to disclose liability defenses affected admissibility of evidence at foreclosure hearing)
- Conn. Nat’l Bank v. N. E. Owen II, Inc., 578 A.2d 655 (Conn. App. 1990) (a defense must be based on an articulated legal reason or fact to bar affidavit under § 23-18(a))
- Weaver v. McKnight, 97 A.3d 920 (Conn. 2014) (whether a hearsay exception applies is a question of law subject to plenary review)