Background
Barry and Christine Burns obtained a mortgage loan of $974,940 from Option One Mortgage Corporation in January 2007 to finance real property in Fairfield, Connecticut. The mortgage was later assigned to Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, the plaintiff-appellee. The defendants defaulted on the loan, and Wells Fargo commenced a foreclosure action in June 2019, seeking both foreclosure and reformation of the mortgage.
The defendants asserted a special defense claiming that Wells Fargo failed to provide them with notice required under Connecticut’s Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP) statutes (General Statutes §§ 8-265dd and 8-265ee) before commencing the foreclosure action. Wells Fargo submitted an affidavit showing that it had mailed an EMAP notice by certified mail on December 10, 2018 to the defendants at the property address, and provided postal tracking documentation demonstrating that the notice was returned to sender as unclaimed.
The trial court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, determining that the notice requirements had been satisfied. The defendants appealed the resulting judgment of strict foreclosure, arguing that “giving notice” requires actual delivery of the EMAP notice, not merely mailing it.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting the defendants’ interpretation of the EMAP notice requirement. The court held that the statutory notice provisions of § 8-265ee(a) do not require proof of actual delivery of an EMAP notice. Instead, compliance with the statute is satisfied by mailing the notice by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the property address, regardless of whether it is actually received or remains unclaimed.
The court relied on the companion case U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Jackson, 239 Conn. App. 418 (2026), decided the same day, which addressed the identical legal question. The court reasoned that “an EMAP notice is ‘given’ for purposes of § 8-265dd(b) when the notice provisions of § 8-265ee have been satisfied,” and that § 8-265dd(b) likewise does not mandate actual delivery of notice. Wells Fargo’s mailing of the EMAP notice by certified mail on December 10, 2018—nearly six months before commencing the foreclosure action—fully complied with the statutory requirement.
Key Takeaways
- Connecticut’s EMAP notice requirement is satisfied by mailing the notice by certified mail, not by actual delivery to the homeowner.
- A mortgagee need not prove that the homeowner actually received or claimed the EMAP notice to comply with statutes § 8-265dd and § 8-265ee.
- The court rejected the argument that “giving notice” under the foreclosure statutes requires something more stringent than certified mailing.
- Mortgagees may proceed with foreclosure once they have mailed the required notice and the applicable waiting periods have expired, even if the notice is returned unclaimed.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important aspect of Connecticut’s mortgage foreclosure process and the protections afforded to homeowners under the EMAP statutes. By holding that mailing by certified mail satisfies the statutory notice requirement, the court reduces disputes over whether homeowners actually received foreclosure-related notices. This interpretation favors mortgagees by establishing a bright-line rule: compliance does not turn on the homeowner’s actual receipt of the notice, but rather on the mortgagee’s completion of the mailing requirement.
For homeowners facing foreclosure in Connecticut, the decision underscores the importance of monitoring for certified mail at the property address, as the statutory notice may be deemed “given” even if returned unclaimed. The ruling aligns Connecticut law with practical realities in mortgage servicing and provides greater certainty for both lenders and borrowers regarding the timeline and prerequisites for foreclosure proceedings.