· 7/29/2025

Hudson City Savings Bank v. Hellman

Citations

  • 234 Conn. App. 45

Syllabus

The defendant homeowners, C and H, appealed from the trial court's judg- ment of foreclosure by sale rendered for the substitute plaintiff, M Co. The defendants executed and delivered a note payable to B Co., which endorsed the note in blank and assigned the note and mortgage to the plaintiff, H Co., which later merged into M Co. B Co. remained the servicer of the loan. The defendants claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied their motion for a continuance in order to conduct further discovery. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery rulings or in denying the defendants' motion for a continuance, as the defendants failed to seek timely remedies available under our rules of practice and their request for relief on the eve of trial was untimely. The trial court correctly determined that M Co. had sustained its burden of proof, as there was sufficient evidence to establish that M Co. had authorized B Co. to act on its behalf. The trial court's conclusion that M Co. had established that a notice of default had been sent to the defendants by first class mail was not clearly erroneous, as it was supported by ample evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding certain testimony as to conversations between C and agents of B Co. as inadmissible hearsay, as the defendants failed to establish the scope of the authority or the identity of the purported agents of B Co. This court declined to address the defendants' inadequately briefed claim that the trial court improperly overruled the defendants' objection to testi- mony that addressed certain business practices. The trial court's sua sponte comments as to the sufficiency of M Co.'s evidence and regarding testimony from a witness for M Co., although unnec- essary, did not rise to the level of judicial bias, as the comments were situated within the context of a scheduling concern and did not rise to the level of being so egregious as to demand a reversal of the

Judges: Elgo; Suarez; Clark

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.