JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Malick

Citations

• 347 Conn. 155

Syllabus

Pursuant to the rules of practice (§ 23-18 (a)), in any action to foreclose a mortgage, ''where no defense as to the amount of the mortgage debt is interposed, such debt may be proved by presenting to the judicial author- 156 JULY, 2023 347 Conn. 155 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Malick ity the original note and mortgage, together with the affidavit of the plaintiff . . . stating what amount, including interest to the date of the hearing, is due . . . .'' The plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the named defendant, M, after he defaulted on a promissory note secured by the mortgage. After the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, the plaintiff moved for judgment of strict foreclosure and submitted an affidavit of debt pursuant to Practice Book § 23-18 (a) to establish the amount of the debt owed. M objected, claiming that the affidavit contained hearsay and incorrectly calculated his municipal tax liability and the outstanding interest that he owed on the loan. The trial court granted M additional time to obtain and submit verified documentation to support his claims, but M did not do so. Instead, M filed another objection to the plaintiff's affidavit of debt, further claiming that municipal records indicated that the plaintiff had overstated M's municipal taxes and incorrectly calculated the interest he owed. M's objection included an exhibit containing a year-to-year breakdown of what he claimed were the taxes actually owed on the property, which M had obtained from the records of the municipal tax collector. At a subsequent hearing to consider M's offer of proof in support of his objection, the trial court relied on the plaintiff's affidavit of debt and other submissions in rendering judgment of strict foreclosure. In doing so, the court accepted the figure that the plaintiff represented in its affidavit of debt as the amount of interest M owed, but the court did not co