232 Conn.App. 501
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- The case concerns the fourth foreclosure action by Wells Fargo Bank against Paul C. Bissonnette related to a 2005 mortgage and subsequent loan modification agreements.
- The defendant repeatedly defaulted on his mortgage payments, entering into three loan modifications (2009, 2010, and purportedly 2012), but defaulted again after each.
- Previous foreclosure actions were filed; the third action ended in Bissonnette’s favor because a 2012 modification was deemed invalid and unenforceable.
- The present (fourth) action was based on defaults under the 2005 note and earlier modifications (2009/2010), not the 2012 modification.
- The trial court entered judgment of strict foreclosure for Wells Fargo, rejecting Bissonnette’s defenses and finding he defaulted under the original note or modified terms regardless of the 2010 modification’s enforceability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of 2010 loan modification | Waiver or estoppel applies; modification enforceable even if not signed | Modification invalid due to lack of lender’s signature | Judgment proper; even if unenforceable, default existed |
| Application of res judicata/collateral estoppel | Different default and different modification at issue, new notice of default | Prior case resolved on merits, barring subsequent foreclosure based on same note | Res judicata/collateral estoppel not applicable |
| Evidence of default on note/modification | Defendant failed to make payments since 2010, evidenced by records | Plaintiff did not establish breach of the (allegedly unenforceable) 2010 mod. | Ample evidence of continuing default |
| Notice of default | Plaintiff complied with requirement (argued or implicit) | Did not receive proper notice tied to the 2010 modification | Not reviewed—claim inadequately briefed |
Key Cases Cited
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn. App. 165 (Burden of proof for plaintiff in foreclosure)
- ARS Investors II 2012-1 HVB, LLC v. Crystal, LLC, 324 Conn. 680 (Standard of review for trial court's discretion in foreclosure)
- Schwarzschild v. Martin, 191 Conn. 316 (Parties may be bound by unsigned contracts if they accept benefits)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fitzpatrick, 190 Conn. App. 231 (Notice of default as condition precedent to foreclosure)
- Solon v. Slater, 345 Conn. 794 (Elements for res judicata and collateral estoppel)
- Wells Fargo Bank, National Assn. v. Doreus, 218 Conn. App. 77 (Claim and issue preclusion principles in foreclosure)