Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn, 148 Conn. App. 1

Wells Fargo (plaintiff) obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure against Michael Melahn (defendant) on November 22, 2010, with a law day of January 11, 2011, and the judgment ordered the plaintiff to send specified notice to nonappearing defendants in accordance with uniform standing order JD-CV-104.
The court mailed the judgment to plaintiff’s counsel on November 23, 2010, but the plaintiff did not send the required certified and regular-mail notices to Melahn until January 7, 2011; the certified delivery occurred on January 11, 2011 (the law day).
The notice that was sent omitted the mandatory information required by the standing order, yet the plaintiff certified to the court that it had mailed notice in compliance with the standing orders.
After obtaining counsel, Melahn filed an appearance (Feb 22, 2011) and moved to dismiss for plaintiff’s noncompliance and false certification; the trial court initially granted dismissal but then vacated that order, reasoning it lacked authority to open the judgment after the law day had passed.
On appeal, the Appellate Court concluded the trial court retained equitable jurisdiction to open the judgment under the unique facts — plaintiff’s failure to follow its explicit judgment terms and its false certification — and reversed the trial court’s denial of Melahn’s motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court could open a strict foreclosure judgment after law day	Title vested; §49-15 bars opening after title becomes absolute; court lacked jurisdiction	Plaintiff’s noncompliance with judgment and false certification justify reopening despite law day	Court has equitable authority to open judgment under these exceptional facts and may do so despite law day passing
Whether failure to mail required notice affected law-day running or title vesting	Failure to give notice does not affect appeal period; law day still ran	Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court-ordered notice deprived Melahn of opportunity to defend and warrants relief	Notice omission plus false certification made circumstances ‘‘rare and extreme’’ supporting relief
Whether plaintiff’s false certification and omission amount to fraud/egregious conduct warranting relief	Certification did not revive jurisdiction; plaintiff relied on statutory limits	False certification and omission were inequitable and prevented defense; equity should remedy	Court treated plaintiff’s conduct as egregious, permitting equitable relief to vindicate judgment terms
Appropriate remedy for noncompliance (dismissal vs. other sanction)	Relief after law day barred; attorney conduct not dispositive of title vesting	Dismissal was proper sanction for noncompliance and false certification	Appellate Court did not decide the specific sanction; remanded for reconsideration of appropriate remedy

New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251 (Supreme Court) (describes interplay of equitable relief and statutory limits in foreclosure)
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 260 Conn. 232 (Supreme Court) (trial court’s continuing equitable jurisdiction to effectuate judgments derives from inherent powers)
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 276 Conn. 168 (Supreme Court) (applies AvalonBay reasoning on equitable authority to vindicate judgments)
Citibank, N.A. v. Lindland, 310 Conn. 147 (Supreme Court) (equity may grant relief in rare and exceptional circumstances where mistake or counsel conduct creates injustice)
Cavallo v. Derby Savings Bank, 188 Conn. 281 (Supreme Court) (equitable grounds for relief: fraud, accident, mistake, or want of actual notice)
Ferguson v. Sabo, 115 Conn. 619 (Supreme Court) (discusses waiver of jurisdictional objections after parties proceed post-law day)