209 Conn.App. 483
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- In 2007 defendants executed a $340,000 note secured by a mortgage; the note was later endorsed in blank and the mortgage transferred among servicers/holders.
- Ocwen filed a foreclosure in 2011; the plaintiff role later shifted to Nationstar and then Wilmington after recorded assignments.
- Extensive delay and court-ordered mediation occurred; discovery revealed missing loan payment history for multi‑year gaps and the court ordered Wilmington to describe its search efforts.
- After discovery closed, defendants promptly sought leave to amend their answer to add seven special defenses (unclean hands, payment/escrow errors, RESPA violations, fraud, unauthorized endorsement, etc.).
- The trial court denied the requested continuance and then denied leave to amend without explanation, granted Wilmington summary judgment as to liability without analysis, and entered a judgment of strict foreclosure.
- The Appellate Court reversed: it held the denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion, which required reversal of the summary judgment and the foreclosure judgment and remand to permit the amendments and further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend special defenses? | Denial appropriate to avoid delay and because plaintiff had waited to press the summary judgment motion. | Amendment was timely post‑discovery, pleadings not closed, and would not unduly delay or prejudice plaintiff. | Abuse of discretion; denial reversed because no sound reason shown, pleadings open, and amendments were timely. |
| Was summary judgment as to liability proper after denial to amend? | SJ proper because no genuine issue of material fact and plaintiff met prima facie burden. | Denial of leave to amend foreclosed consideration of defenses that could create factual issues. | SJ reversed; because valid special defenses could create triable issues, SJ should not have been granted after improperly denying amendment. |
| Could the court enter strict foreclosure under Practice Book §23‑18(a) where debt amount was disputed? | Plaintiff relied on affidavit and original note to prove debt. | Defendants disputed amount and raised defenses requiring evidentiary resolution. | Court did not reach merits after reversal; appellate guidance indicates disputed debt/defenses may preclude relief under §23‑18(a). |
| Was it appropriate for a different judge to "articulate" the original judge's unexplained ruling? | Articulation by another judge could supply the needed basis for the ruling. | Only the judge who issued the ruling may properly articulate its basis; another judge’s articulation amounts to a substitute decision. | Procedure disavowed; articulation should come from the original judge, and another judge’s speculative articulation is improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Cordisco, 37 Conn. App. 515 (Conn. App. 1995) (refusal to allow amendment is abuse of discretion absent sound reason)
- Miller v. Fishman, 102 Conn. App. 286 (Conn. App. 2007) (amendments should be allowed unless they cause unreasonable delay, prejudice, or reveal laches)
- Conference Ctr. Ltd. v. TRC, 189 Conn. 212 (Conn. 1983) (leniency advised when amendments are proffered in response to a summary judgment motion)
- Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Voog, 233 Conn. 352 (Conn. 1995) (appellate courts may disturb denial of amendment in rare cases to prevent injustice)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn. v. Blowers, 332 Conn. 656 (Conn. 2019) (post‑origination servicer misconduct can support special defenses in foreclosure)
- Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Frimel, 192 Conn. App. 786 (Conn. App. 2019) (trial court must first determine whether plaintiff met its prima facie burden before granting summary judgment)