Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Khatun
2013 WL 5798966
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- On May 16, 2008, Khatun signed a $405,000 note secured by a mortgage on 6 Mulvoy Street, Norwalk.
- Khatun defaulted; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. accelerated and filed suit in June 2009.
- A judgment of strict foreclosure was entered on November 2, 2009; Khatun later moved to open the judgment and extend the law days, which the court granted.
- From February 2010 to April 2012, Khatun filed fifteen motions to open the judgment and extend law days; the court noted the number and limited extensions.
- On February 6, 2012, the court extended the law day to May 8, 2012, with debt totaling $433,287; further motions to open were to be filed by April 10, 2012 and decided by April 16, 2012.
- Khatun’s fifteenth motion to open (April 10, 2012) referenced a $200,000 short sale offer; Wells Fargo objected; the court denied the motion on April 16, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion denying the fifteenth motion to open. | Wells Fargo contends Khatun waited nearly three years to file the fifteenth motion, failing to show equitable grounds. | Khatun argues the short sale and pending offer warranted vacating the judgment. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the short sale prevented enforcement of the judgment. | Wells Fargo maintains the short sale was not closed and thus cannot vacate the judgment. | Khatun asserts the offer supported relief from judgment. | Not adopted as grounds to vacate; still denial affirmed. |
| Whether the appeal is moot despite the May 8, 2012 law day. | Wells Fargo argues mootness since the law day passed, offering no practical relief. | Khatun contends appellate stay remains and relief could be afforded on appeal. | Appeal not moot; stay and potential relief available on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Nicholas, 73 Conn. App. 830 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard in mortgage foreclosures; equity-based review)
- Hamm v. Taylor, 180 Conn. 491 (1980) (foreclosure as an equitable proceeding; equity controls)
- Brooklyn Savings Bank v. Frimberger, 29 Conn. App. 628 (1992) (appeal stays of enforcement; stay principles applicable)
- RAL Mgmt., Inc. v. Valley View Assocs., 278 Conn. 672 (2006) (enforcement stays; rules governing appellate stayed relief)
- Bankers Trust of California, N.A. v. Neal, 64 Conn. App. 154 (2001) (appellate stays; procedures for lifting stays)