216 Conn.App. 200
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- In 2006 Rago and Rondinello executed a note and mortgage; payments stopped in 2011 and U.S. Bank, as assignee, sued to foreclose.
- Trial court granted summary judgment as to liability and entered a strict foreclosure judgment finding debt $627,647.93 and fair market value (FMV) $280,000.
- Rondinello appealed; this court affirmed and remanded only "for the purpose of setting new law days."
- On remand the plaintiff filed a motion to reset law days and, separately (without a motion), filed an updated affidavit of debt, a new appraisal, and the appraiser’s affidavit.
- At a short-calendar appearance the trial court (over Rago’s absence) sua sponte reopened, modified, and reentered the judgment increasing debt and FMV (to $727,162.61 and $320,000) and set new law days.
- This court reversed, holding the trial court exceeded the remand and violated due process by making updated findings without a proper motion or notice and opportunity to be heard; it directed reinstatement of the original judgment and to set law days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could update debt and FMV on remand | Court may update findings to confirm strict foreclosure remains appropriate; equitable power to make such adjustments | Trial court exceeded the limited remand and acted beyond the motion to reset law days by making new findings sua sponte | Court erred — exceeded scope of remand by making updated findings without proper basis |
| Whether absence of notice/ hearing was permissible | Submission on short calendar and filings sufficed; no additional notice required | Rago lacked notice and chance to be heard before judgment was modified | Denied — Due process required notice and opportunity to be heard; defendant did not receive them |
| Proper procedure to change prior findings (debt/FM V) post-remand | Filing updated affidavits and appraisal justified modification | A motion to open/modify or express notice and hearing were required before changing judgment | Required — court should have had a motion to open or provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before updating findings |
| Mootness / practical effect of reversal | Moot because remand would allow argument anyway; reversal changes nothing materially | Appeal is live because judgment actually was modified without process | Plaintiff abandoned mootness at argument; court rejected mootness and reversed to restore original judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsley v. Townsley, 37 Conn. App. 100 (1995) (trial court may not open issues beyond the scope of the motion without notice; due process requires notice of matters to be decided)
- TDS Painting & Restoration, Inc. v. Copper Beech Farm, Inc., 73 Conn. App. 492 (2002) (remand limits: trial court must follow appellate mandate but may consider matters relevant to remand)
- State v. Tabone, 301 Conn. 708 (2011) (scope-of-remand is a question of law reviewed plenarily)
- Toro Credit Co. v. Zeytoonjian, 341 Conn. 316 (2021) (foreclosure by sale preferred when property value substantially exceeds the debt)
- U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Rothermel, 339 Conn. 366 (2021) (foreclosure is peculiarly an equitable action)
- Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Zuckerman, 31 Conn. App. 440 (1993) (earlier panel held trial court could do only what remand directed — noted and discussed here)
- Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB v. Charles, 95 Conn. App. 315 (2006) (strict foreclosure decree fixes amount due and timeframe for redemption)