209 Conn.App. 862
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- LendingHome filed a strict foreclosure against property after prior foreclosure judgment; Traditions Oil Group (defendant) was defaulted for failure to appear.
- Service was effectuated at the Secretary of the State and by mail to the defendant’s principal New York address; mailed copies were returned as "unclaimed/unable to forward."
- Court entered judgment of strict foreclosure, plaintiff certified mailing of required notices under Practice Book §17-22 and the court’s standing orders, and set a law day; defendant did not redeem by the law day.
- Title vested in the plaintiff and a certificate of foreclosure was recorded; the property was later sold to a third-party purchaser.
- More than one year after the law day, Traditions filed an appearance and moved to open/vacate the judgment, claiming it never received notice and that the plaintiff falsely certified compliance.
- The trial court denied the motion to open and a subsequent motion to reargue; the Appellate Court affirmed, finding no extraordinary equitable grounds to override §49-15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether title vested in plaintiff despite defendant's claim of inadequate notice | Plaintiff: complied with Practice Book §17-22 and standing orders; mailed notices to registered address | Defendant: never received notices; plaintiff certified compliance falsely | Held: Title vested; plaintiff complied with notice rules and defects (if any) did not justify reopening after vesting |
| Whether the trial court’s finding of compliance was clearly erroneous | Plaintiff: provided proof of mailing/tracking and return receipts; court’s finding supported | Defendant: asserted court erred in crediting plaintiff’s certification | Held: Appellate court found no reversible error; defendant failed to show rare/egregious defects like in Melahn |
| Whether denial of a hearing on the motion to open violated due process | Plaintiff: court could deny because defendant’s allegations did not present colorable equitable relief post‑vesting | Defendant: entitled to a hearing on factual claims of nonreceipt and misrepresentation | Held: No due process violation; factual allegations were insufficient to warrant equitable relief or a reopening hearing |
| Whether denial of motion to reargue was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiff: reargument not warranted because original denial was correct | Defendant: trial court should have reconsidered in light of alleged notice failures | Held: Denial of reargument was not an abuse of discretion given lack of merit in motion to open |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB v. Charles, 95 Conn. App. 315 (2006) (explains that title vests in the mortgagee when law day passes)
- New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251 (1998) (describes interplay of equitable and statutory remedies in strict foreclosure)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn, 148 Conn. App. 1 (2014) (permitted reopening in a rare case where plaintiff failed to provide required notice and certified compliance falsely)
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Rothermel, 339 Conn. 366 (2021) (reaffirmed that post‑vesting equitable relief is limited to rare and exceptional circumstances)
- Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 178 Conn. App. 82 (2017) (describes effect of law day on equitable right of redemption)
- Cavallo v. Derby Savings Bank, 188 Conn. 281 (1982) (recognizes fraud, accident, mistake, and surprise as possible equitable grounds)