The mortgagee commenced a foreclosure action against the mortgagor after the mortgagor defaulted on a commercial loan secured by a mortgage on real property. The mortgagor failed to appear, and the court entered a default judgment. Following the default judgment, the mortgagee obtained an order allowing amounts due under a different promissory note to be included in the total debt for purposes of judgment and bidding. The trial court ordered a foreclosure by sale and set a new sale date. The mortgagor then appeared in court and filed a motion to open and vacate the foreclosure judgment. The mortgagor argued that the mortgagee (1) lacked standing; (2) the judgment improperly included the second note debt; and (3) the mortgagee had failed to give the required notice of the foreclosure judgment modification to nonappearing junior mortgage holders. The court denied the mortgagor’s motion, and the foreclosure sale commenced. The mortgagor appealed the judgment
In E. Conn. Sav. Bank v. Venus Devs., LLC, 231 Conn. App. 750 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025), the court reversed and remanded with direction to open the judgment, vacate the sale, and set a new sale date. The court held that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the mortgagor’s motion to open and remanded the case because the mortgagee had failed to comply with the notice requirement in Practice Book § 17-22. The court held that § 17-22 required the mortgagee’s counsel to send notice of the terms of the modified judgment to nonappearing junior mortgage holders within ten days, and that notice of the earlier foreclosure judgment did not satisfy the rule. The court further reasoned that proper notice could have affected bidding at the foreclosure sale and potentially benefited the mortgagor. However, the court rejected the mortgagor’s first claim, its standing argument, because the mortgagee had been the holder of the promissory note when it commenced the foreclosure action, and thus had standing to enforce the note. Furthermore, the court declined to address the mortgagor’s second claim challenging the inclusion and proof of the second promissory note debt because the borrower failed to timely appeal the underlying foreclosure judgment under Practice Book § 63-1(a). Therefore, the court remanded for the limited purpose of opening the judgment, vacating the foreclosure sale, and setting a new sale date.
By Landon Womack [email protected]
Edited By Olivia Lewis [email protected]
Edited By Callighan Ard [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott [email protected]