175 Conn. App. 362
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Town of Stratford filed two municipal tax-lien foreclosure actions against Wayne LeBlanc (two contiguous parcels) in July 2011; marshal returns show in-hand service on July 19, 2011.
- Plaintiff moved for defaults for failure to appear; defaults entered November 23, 2011. Plaintiff later moved for judgments of strict foreclosure in November 2015; court rendered judgments of foreclosure by sale in December 2015 (sale date March 5, 2016).
- LeBlanc filed appearances and motions to open the judgments in February 2016, asserting he did not recall service, that a December 2011 fire at his business destroyed records, and that an October 2013 escrow/payment arrangement ($40,000) suggested the town had de-emphasized enforcement.
- At a March 1, 2016 hearing the trial court effectively denied the motions to open (but extended the sale date); LeBlanc appealed that denial.
- The controlling statute for opening default judgments is Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-212(a): a movant must show (1) a good defense existed when judgment entered, and (2) that mistake, accident, or other reasonable cause prevented presenting the defense.
- Appellate court affirmed: it held the trial court did not abuse its discretion because LeBlanc failed to show reasonable cause for his prolonged nonappearance (defaults entered before the fire and LeBlanc waited years after the fire to appear).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motions to open default judgments under § 52-212(a) | Court should deny; defaults and judgment properly entered | LeBlanc: judgment should be opened because he had a good defense and was prevented by mistake/accident (fire destroyed records; belief town abandoned enforcement) | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; movant failed to prove reasonable cause to delay appearance |
| Whether LeBlanc showed "mistake, accident or other reasonable cause" for failing to appear | N/A (plaintiff disputes movant's excuse) | Fire destroyed records (Dec 2011) and escrow/payment implied town abandoned action, justifying delay | Denied — court reasonably found failure to appear was negligence; fire occurred after defaults and LeBlanc waited years to act |
| Whether LeBlanc established a good defense existing when judgment entered | N/A | Claimed defenses to foreclosure based on payments/escrow and loss of records | Not addressed on merits: movant failed second prong; both prongs required under § 52-212(a) |
| Whether trial court had in rem jurisdiction given alleged partial payment | Plaintiff: jurisdiction proper; escrow did not defeat tax-lien claim | LeBlanc: $40,000 payment/escrow undermines plaintiff's proof that taxes unpaid | Rejected — appellant gave no persuasive jurisdictional argument; dispute over elements does not divest court of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Priest v. Edmonds, 295 Conn. 132 (Conn. 2010) (standard of appellate review for motions to open default judgments lies within trial court discretion)
- Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 265 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2003) (presumption that trial court applied law correctly when record lacks explicit reasoning)
- People’s Bank v. Horesco, 205 Conn. 319 (Conn. 1987) (burden on defaulted party to show reasonable cause; negligence insufficient)
- State v. Ritz Realty Corp., 63 Conn. App. 544 (Conn. App. 2001) (actual notice with intentional nonappearance does not justify opening judgment)
- Weinstein & Wisser, P.C. v. Cornelius, 151 Conn. App. 174 (Conn. App. 2014) (movant must satisfy both prongs of § 52-212(a))
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1977) (distinction between in personam and in rem jurisdiction)