Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bissonnette

Citations

• 232 Conn. App. 501

Syllabus

The defendant property owner appealed from the trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in the plaintiff's fourth foreclosure action brought against the defendant. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure because a 2010 loan modification agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was not signed by the plaintiff's agent and, thus, was invalid and unenforceable. Held: The defendant's claim that the trial court improperly rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure because the 2010 loan modification agreement was never signed by the plaintiff's agent as required under the terms of the original mortgage deed and was therefore invalid and unenforceable failed because, even if the loan modification was deemed invalid, the plaintiff nevertheless would have been entitled to a judgment of foreclosure because the plaintiff produced evidence that the defendant was in default under the terms of the original note and mortgage. The trial court properly determined that a judgment of strict foreclosure was not precluded under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel because the record did not support a finding that any material issue or claim raised and decided on the merits in the third foreclosure action had also been raised and adjudicated in the present action, which was brought following the issuance of a new notice of default. There was adequate evidence presented to support the trial court's finding that the defendant was in default on the note and mortgage as modified by the 2010 loan modification agreement. This court declined to review the defendant's inadequately briefed claim that the plaintiff had failed to provide him with proper notice of default. Argued October 7, 2024—officially released May 6, 2025