Patriot National Bank v. Braverman
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 141
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Patriot National Bank foreclosed a second and third mortgage on Braverman's Greenwich home, with liability decided in 2009 and the note/mortgage subsequently assigned to Pinpat Acquisition Corporation.
- In Oct. 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment of strict foreclosure and an affidavit of debt stating the mortgage amount.
- At an Oct. 18, 2010 hearing Braverman objected to $46,123.83 for forced-place insurance but stipulated to a debt of $1,067,871.75, and the court entered a foreclosure-by-sale judgment with a clerical error listing $1,670,871.75.
- On Mar. 14, 2011 a new sale date was set; Braverman moved to reopen on Apr. 12, 2011 arguing clerical error and incorrect interest calculation; a hearing was held on Apr. 18, 2011.
- The court corrected the clerical error and, after considering the interest issue, reduced the debt by $1,140.35 (to $1,066,731.40) with a denial of the motion to reopen; the court remanded for a new sale date, and the appeal was dismissed as Braverman was not aggrieved.
- The appellate court concluded Braverman obtained the relief he sought and was therefore not aggrieved, so it dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Braverman’s motion to reopen required a hearing to challenge the debt affidavit. | Plaintiff contends no cross-examination was needed due to stipulation. | Braverman argues the debt affidavit must be tested at a hearing. | Braverman not aggrieved; relief granted, appeal dismissed. |
| Whether Braverman was aggrieved despite the court reducing the debt to the amount he challenged. | Relief equaled the challenged amount; no further relief needed. | Being denied reopening, he remains aggrieved. | Not aggrieved; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co. v. Schmitz, 24 Conn.App. 230 (1991) (aggrieved status required for appeal; relief granted defeats appeal)
- Burritt Mutual Savings Bank of New Britain v. Tucker, 183 Conn. 369 (1981) (no need for further proceedings when debt amount admitted)
- Seymour v. Seymour, 262 Conn. 107 (2002) (appealability and relief principles in debt-related judgments)
- Weihing v. Dodsworth, 100 Conn.App. 29 (2007) (requirement that issues be raised in trial court to be reviewed on appeal)