Eastern Connecticut Savings Bank v. Venus Developments, LLC

Citations

• 231 Conn. App. 750

Syllabus

The defendant property owner appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to open and vacate the judgment of foreclosure. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in denying its motion to open because the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 17-22). Held: There was no merit to the defendant's claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open because the plaintiff lacked stand- ing, as the plaintiff had been the holder of the note at the time of the commencement of the foreclosure action. The trial court acted within its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to open the foreclosure judgment with respect to the issue of whether the amount of the debt had been properly proven, as the defendant failed to challenge the amount of the debt in an appeal from the foreclosure judgment and the issue of the amount of the debt attacked the merits of the underlying foreclosure judgment. The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open because the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements of Practice Book § 17-22, having failed to provide proper notice of the foreclosure judgment to two defendants. Argued January 6—officially released April 1, 2025