Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tarzia, 186 Conn. App. 800

In 2007 Joseph S. Tarzia executed a $1,334,000 note secured by a Stamford property mortgage; Wells Fargo, as trustee, commenced foreclosure in 2009 for default.
After protracted litigation, the trial court granted Wells Fargo summary judgment on liability (May 2012) and entered a judgment of strict foreclosure (May 28, 2013); this court affirmed that judgment on direct appeal (150 Conn. App. 660).
Tarzia later filed successive motions (including a March 9, 2017 motion) seeking to open and vacate the foreclosure judgment based on alleged newly discovered fraud tied to prior mortgage releases; he attached copies of 2004 releases and referenced a book that purportedly ‘‘tipped him off.’'
The trial court denied the motion to open and vacate on March 13, 2017; Tarzia then appealed that denial. The appeal challenges (1) denial of the motion to open/vacate for fraud and lack of a hearing, (2) the court’s finding that the plaintiff possessed the note (standing), and (3) an asserted due process violation under the ‘‘mosaic rule.’'
The appellate court reviewed only whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the late motion to open (because the motion was filed well beyond the 20‑day period) and declined to relitigate merits already decided in the prior appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to open/vacate (fraud) and by not holding an evidentiary hearing	Denial was proper; Tarzia did not make the threshold showing of diligence or clear proof of fraud; no timely request for a hearing in the record	New evidence (mortgage release documents and a book) shows fraud; entitles him to an evidentiary hearing and to have judgment opened and vacated	No abuse of discretion. Tarzia failed to request or establish entitlement to a hearing and did not show diligence or clear proof of fraud required to open a final judgment
Whether plaintiff had possession/standing to bring foreclosure	Standing was already established; plaintiff submitted affidavit, note, mortgage, assignment and was entitled to prima facie presumption; prior appeal resolved this	Plaintiff lacked possession of the note at filing; so no standing	Not reached on the merits. Claim precluded by res judicata because the issue was decided on the merits in the prior appeal (150 Conn. App. 660)
Whether trial court violated due process by failing to view case as a whole under the "mosaic rule"	Mosaic rule is inapposite (applies to dissolution cases); Tarzia did not brief or analyze how it applies	Court failed to consider entire case under mosaic rule, violating due process	Not reviewed. Claim inadequately briefed and abandoned; mosaic rule is specific to dissolution actions

Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (Conn. 2008) (motion to open for fraud requires diligence and clear proof; threshold showing needed for hearing)
RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224 (Conn. 2011) (presumptions/requirements for establishing status as holder at summary judgment)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tarzia, 150 Conn. App. 660 (Conn. App. 2014) (prior appeal in this case resolving standing/possession issue)
Gillis v. Gillis, 214 Conn. 336 (Conn. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard for motions to open)
Flater v. Grace, 291 Conn. 410 (Conn. 2009) (scope of appellate review of discretionary rulings)
Tirozzi v. Shelby Ins. Co., 50 Conn. App. 680 (Conn. App. 1998) (res judicata principles and claim preclusion)