231 Conn.App. 761
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- The decedent, Beryl E. Rowland, executed a reverse mortgage in 2015, securing a loan on her Danbury, Connecticut property.
- After Rowland’s death in December 2020, the lender (originally Reverse Mortgage Solutions, later Mortgage Assets Management, LLC) accelerated the debt and filed a foreclosure action in October 2021.
- The lender named as defendants the “heirs and/or creditors of the Estate of Beryl E. Rowland” along with the decedent’s son, Andrew; the actual heirs (grandchildren Trinity Tatiana Pylypczuk and Andrew Bryce Pylypczuk) did not receive direct notice and appeared only days before the scheduled foreclosure sale.
- The heirs filed a motion to open and vacate the foreclosure judgment (or, alternatively, to extend the sale date) due to lack of actual notice and the fact that the only originally named defendant (Andrew) had predeceased the action.
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, and the heirs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal by heirs not individually named | Heirs must move to intervene to become parties; notice statute only | Heirs already made parties by statutory class designation | Heirs are parties under §52-69; standing to appeal is proper |
| Requirement for hearing on motion to open | No hearing required as heirs did not show good defense or cause | Motion raised issues of notice and improper service requiring hearing | No abuse of discretion; hearing was not required absent good defense |
| Compliance with statutory requirements for motion to open | Motion failed to assert good defense or include required verification | Motion improperly denied on procedural grounds; due process claim | Motion failed both prongs: no defense alleged, not verified as required |
| Effect of late notice and predeceased named defendant | Heirs had no good cause; their appearance waived jurisdiction issues | Lack of notice and improper party (deceased) render judgment void | These facts do not constitute a good defense or jurisdictional basis here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salmon, 250 Conn. 147 (Conn. 1999) (outlines requirements for appellate standing and party status)
- Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Miller, 228 Conn. App. 431 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024) (sets abuse of discretion review standard for foreclosure motions)
- Weinstein & Wisser, P.C. v. Cornelius, 151 Conn. App. 174 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014) (addressing court’s inherent authority to open judgments on jurisdictional grounds)