165 Conn. App. 421
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- U.S. Bank (plaintiff), trustee, sued Anna Morawska (defendant) in 2009 to foreclose a mortgage on her Fairfield residence; defaulted note originally $391,200.
- Defendant was admitted to Connecticut foreclosure mediation in 2010; plaintiff obtained summary judgment and later, in 2013, a judgment of strict foreclosure setting a law day and finding a debt larger than the original note and a fair market value for the property.
- Morawska filed a bankruptcy petition that automatically opened the foreclosure judgment under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-15(b), vacating the law day; the bankruptcy was dismissed and plaintiff moved to reset law days and reenter judgment.
- Defendant sought reinclusion in foreclosure mediation; the trial court denied reinclusion and later, after a hearing, reentered a modified judgment with a new law day and higher debt finding.
- Defendant moved to reargue the court’s decision; the court denied the motion as untimely and on the merits; defendant appealed arguing (1) denial of an oral hearing on reinclusion, (2) court improperly made new findings when resetting law day, and (3) incorrect denial of motion to reargue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had to hold an oral hearing before denying reinclusion in foreclosure mediation | Statute requires only good cause; court may decide without hearing and found no good cause | Court should have held oral argument before denying reinclusion | Court affirmed: §49-31l does not impose a hearing requirement; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying reinclusion for lack of good cause |
| Whether trial court could make new findings (debt, value) when resetting law day after bankruptcy-triggered opening | Plaintiff: court may reopen/modify judgment under §49-15(a)(1) when moving to reset law day and thus may enter new findings | Defendant: §49-15(b) bars altering the judgment except for law days once judgment is opened by bankruptcy filing | Court affirmed: §49-15(b) only automatically opens judgment as to law day; plaintiff’s written motion under §49-15(a)(1) permitted reopening, new findings, and resetting law day |
| Whether denial of motion to reargue was improper and if remainder of court’s merits discussion was dicta | Plaintiff: motion was untimely per court’s view; alternatively, court properly found no overlooked law or facts | Defendant: motion was timely and denial renders later merits discussion dicta | Court held: even assuming timing issue, trial court did not abuse discretion—motion raised no overlooked controlling law or factual misapprehension; merits discussion is not dicta here |
| Standard of review for foreclosure court decisions | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court applies abuse of discretion standard to equitable foreclosure determinations and will presume correctness of trial court’s exercise of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Khatun, 146 Conn. App. 618 (appellate review of foreclosure under abuse of discretion standard)
- Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Broad Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 24 Conn. App. 42 (court may ascertain amount due and property value and set redemption period accordingly)
- Fortin v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 139 Conn. App. 826 (standards and purpose for motions to reargue)
- Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dep’t of Education, 303 Conn. 402 (discussion of dictum when court lacks subject matter jurisdiction)