216 Conn.App. 236
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Susanne Wahba owned waterfront property subject to a mortgage; the bank counterclaimed and obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure in its favor.
- On appeal this court affirmed the strict foreclosure judgment and remanded the case "solely for the purpose of setting new law days." Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 200 Conn. App. 852 (2020).
- On remand the bank filed a motion to reset law days; Wahba objected, arguing the original 2017 appraisal did not account for a steep post-2017 rise in Connecticut property values and asking the bank be required to move to open the judgment with an updated appraisal and debt figures.
- The trial court denied Wahba’s request, concluding it was bound by the appellate rescript to only set new law days and cited Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso.
- Wahba’s subsequent motion to reargue, relying on a Zillow estimate, was denied; she appealed, arguing the court should have entertained changing strict foreclosure to foreclosure by sale.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could change strict foreclosure to foreclosure by sale on remand | Wahba: remand did not preclude reopening the judgment; changed market values justify updated appraisal and possible sale instead of strict foreclosure | JPMorgan: remand limited the trial court to setting new law days; it lacked authority to alter the judgment | Court: Remand barred deviation; Zuckerman forecloses altering judgment on remand other than setting law days |
| Whether Wahba preserved/proved entitlement to open judgment to obtain a foreclosure by sale | Wahba: submitted objection and later Zillow estimate asserting dramatic value increase, argued opening judgment was necessary | JPMorgan: Wahba failed to file a motion to open or present admissible evidence supporting updated value or debt figures | Court: Even if authority existed, Wahba did not move to open or present admissible evidentiary foundation; counsel’s assertions were insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 200 Conn. App. 852 (Conn. App. 2020) (appellate decision affirming strict foreclosure and remanding solely to set new law days)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Zuckerman, 31 Conn. App. 440 (Conn. App. 1993) (on remand a trial court may not deviate from appellate directions and could only set law days)
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 240 Conn. 58 (Conn. 1997) (authority on the limits of trial court action following appellate remand)