Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Owen, 174 Conn. App. 102

Wells Fargo (plaintiff) obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure against Marlene and William Owen for a Norwich property after the Owens defaulted and failed to answer or present defenses at the foreclosure hearing.
The Owens (self‑represented initially, counsel entered April 13, 2015) participated in multiple mediations but did not assert fraud defenses before the judgment was rendered on May 18, 2015.
On July 8, 2015 (after law days were set to begin), the Owens moved to open the judgment under Gen. Stat. § 49‑15, alleging fraud in the inducement: that a WMC agent misrepresented affordability and altered Marlene Owen’s income on the loan application.
They submitted William Owen’s affidavit, the loan application (showing $5,000/month), and Marlene’s 2004 tax returns (showing ≈$2,100/month). They requested oral argument but no testimony.
The trial court denied the motion to open at a short calendar hearing; this appeal challenges that denial. Because the motion to open was filed more than 20 days after the foreclosure judgment, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.
The majority affirmed, finding the affidavit and documents insufficient to show clear proof of fraud or diligence in discovering it; the dissent would have ordered an evidentiary hearing because the submissions met the threshold for further fact‑finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a § 49‑15 motion to open a strict‑foreclosure judgment filed more than 20 days after the judgment	The Owens’ submissions are insufficient to show clear proof of fraud; any discrepancy is the Owens’ responsibility because they had opportunity to review the loan application; plaintiff was also a victim if application was inaccurate	The Owens presented affidavits and documents showing inflated income and misrepresentations, which establish good cause and warrant opening the judgment (or at least an evidentiary hearing)	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion. The court reasonably found the evidence did not show clear proof of fraud and the Owens delayed asserting defenses; trial court need not open judgment or hold evidentiary hearing under these facts

Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (Conn. 2008) (moving party seeking to open judgment on fraud grounds must show diligence and clear proof of fraud)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ruggiri, 164 Conn. App. 479 (Conn. App. 2016) (when motion to open is filed after 20 days, appeal tests only abuse of discretion in denying the motion)
Bank of America, N.A. v. Thomas, 151 Conn. App. 790 (Conn. App. 2014) (party must present more than speculation to open judgment for alleged fraud)
Hartford Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Stage Harbor Corp., 181 Conn. 141 (Conn. 1980) (no abuse of discretion to deny relief where default resulted from moving party’s negligence)
Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB v. Thacker, 73 Conn. App. 616 (Conn. App. 2002) (denial of motion to open not an abuse where only evidence was unsubstantiated affidavit)
Tyler E. Lyman, Inc. v. Lodrini, 78 Conn. App. 684 (Conn. App. 2003) (due process may require an evidentiary hearing where disputed fraud issues underpin the discretionary ruling)