197 Conn.App. 814
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- USAA sought to foreclose a $500,000 mortgage on Charles Gianetti’s Easton property after alleged payment default.
- Gianetti admitted owning the property and executing the note and mortgage but asserted several special defenses; he did not oppose the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on liability.
- Trial court granted summary judgment as to liability and, on June 18, 2018, rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure; Gianetti did not timely appeal that judgment.
- Gianetti filed a counterclaim alleging a promise of a new loan; the court granted USAA’s motion to strike that counterclaim and Gianetti did not replead.
- Gianetti moved to open the strict foreclosure judgment, claiming he missed the June 18 hearing for unspecified medical reasons; the trial court denied the motion and set new law days. Gianetti timely appealed only the denial of the motion to open.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Gianetti’s motion to open the strict foreclosure judgment | No good cause shown to open judgment | Missed hearing for medical reasons; informed court via colleague; sought relief | Affirmed: Gianetti failed to establish good cause; transcript lacked notice and no showing of how absence prevented material input |
| Whether the court erred in striking Gianetti’s counterclaim | Counterclaim concerned a separate transaction and must be brought in a separate action | Counterclaim was permissible (implicit) | Appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment because Gianetti did not replead or obtain final judgment on the stricken counterclaim |
| Whether summary judgment as to liability was improperly granted | Summary judgment proper based on admitted note, mortgage, and default | Raised equitable and other defenses (estoppel, breach, unconscionability) | Not reviewed on appeal: Gianetti failed to timely appeal the underlying foreclosure judgment, so merits are barred |
| Whether adjudication of the motion to open violated due process (rushed; insufficient discovery) | Trial procedure was proper (implicit) | Claimed due process violation—court pressured resolution before discovery | Not preserved for appellate review; therefore not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ruggiri, 164 Conn. App. 479, 137 A.3d 878 (Conn. App. 2016) (motion to open filed late cannot be used to relitigate merits of underlying judgment)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Grogins, 189 Conn. App. 477, 208 A.3d 662 (Conn. App. 2019) (§ 49-15 good-cause standard for opening foreclosure judgments)
- Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Peterson, 171 Conn. App. 842, 158 A.3d 405 (Conn. App. 2017) (standard of review for denial of motion to open judgment)
- Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86, 439 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 1982) (granting motion to strike is not final judgment by itself)
- Pellecchia v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 139 Conn. App. 88, 54 A.3d 658 (Conn. App. 2012) (party ordinarily may amend after a motion to strike; strike not final)
- McGuinness v. McGuinness, 155 Conn. App. 273, 108 A.3d 1181 (Conn. App. 2015) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction over appeals not from final judgments)