· 8/20/2020

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof

Citations

  • 336 Conn. 633

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 49-1), ''[t]he foreclosure of a mortgage is a bar to any further action upon the mortgage debt, note or obligation against the person or persons who are liable for the payment thereof . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 49-14 (a)), however, ''[a]t any time within thirty days after the time limited for redemption has expired, any party to a mortgage foreclosure may file a motion seeking a deficiency judgment.'' The plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain of the defen- dants' real property after they had defaulted on a loan that had been modified by agreement. The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, from which the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court. While the appeal was pending and the defendants were still occupying the property, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for equitable relief and ordered the defendants to reimburse the plaintiff for future property taxes and homeowners insurance premiums that the plaintiff would pay during the pending appeal. The defendants filed an amended appeal with the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judg- ment of strict foreclosure and determined that the trial court's order relating to tax and insurance premium reimbursements was not an abuse of discretion. On the granting of certification, the defendants appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering the defendants to make monetary payments to the plaintiff outside of a deficiency judgment pursuant to § 49-14, and, accordingly, the Appellate Court improperly upheld that order: by pursuing strict foreclosure, the plaintiff elected to take absolute title to the property, a remedy in rem, and to pursue any remaining debt through the procurement of a deficiency judgment, a remedy in personam; moreover, because a deficiency judgment was the exclusive procedure by which the plaintiff could obtain a remedy in personam from the defendants in the context of

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker; Vertefeuille

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.