U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Christophersen
179 Conn. App. 378
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Bonnie Christophersen executed a $460,000 note secured by a mortgage on 2 Woodcock Lane (2003). Plaintiff US Bank, as trustee, commenced foreclosure in May 2011.
- Parties agreed in 2014 to a judgment of strict foreclosure with an eight‑month law day; the court entered that judgment and later reset the law day to March 31, 2015.
- Christophersen filed for bankruptcy on March 27, 2015, triggering an automatic stay; the bankruptcy stay was lifted in August 2015.
- Plaintiff filed a motion (Oct. 1, 2015) to open and modify the judgment seeking a new debt finding, additional fees, a new law day, and leave to enter either strict foreclosure or foreclosure by sale. Multiple continuances were granted to Christophersen; the fourth was denied.
- After a January 19, 2016 hearing the trial court opened and modified the judgment (new debt finding, updated FMV, new law day) but declined to order foreclosure by sale, concluding § 49‑15(b) barred it.
- This appeal challenges standing, due process in relying on the affidavit of debt, denial of a continuance, and the refusal to order foreclosure by sale; the appellate court affirmed on standing, due process, and continuance, but reversed as to refusal to consider foreclosure by sale and remanded for the trial court to rule on that motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring foreclosure | Plaintiff was holder of note (endorsed in blank/assignment) and thus entitled to enforce it at commencement | Plaintiff lacked standing because assignments showed other transfers (e.g., Kondaur) | Plaintiff had standing; documents and affidavit showed endorsement in blank and delivery; defendant offered no rebuttal |
| Reliance on plaintiff's affidavit of debt / due process | Affidavit established debt; plaintiff complied with standing orders and court gave opportunity to be heard | Court relied on affidavit without properly considering defendant's written objections and evidence | No due process violation; defendant had multiple continuances and a full hearing but presented no evidence contradicting affidavit |
| Denial of fourth continuance | Plaintiff opposed further delay; court had already granted three continuances and matters were decided | Defendant needed time to complete discovery, which implicated fair process | Denial was within trial court’s broad discretion given case age and prior accommodations; no abuse of discretion |
| Refusal to entertain foreclosure by sale | Plaintiff’s motion sought either strict foreclosure or sale; court could modify under § 49‑15(a)(1) after filing motion | Court concluded § 49‑15(b) (bankruptcy stay rule) barred ordering foreclosure by sale after reopening | Trial court erred: § 49‑15(b) does not grant modification power but does not preclude § 49‑15(a)(1) authority; remanded for court to rule on motion for foreclosure by sale |
Key Cases Cited
- Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, 310 Conn. 119 (standing = question of law; plenary review)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Bliss, 159 Conn. App. 483 (note endorsed in blank prima facie evidence of holder status)
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Navin, 129 Conn. App. 707 (plaintiff standing where defendant offered no contrary evidence to affidavit)
- Fidelity Trust Co. v. Irick, 206 Conn. 484 (court’s discretion to order strict foreclosure or sale; mortgagee entitled only to debt amount)
- Brann v. Savides, 48 Conn. App. 807 (when property value substantially exceeds lien, refusing sale can be an abuse of discretion)
- Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman, 169 Conn. App. 527 (failure to exercise discretion is error)