Background
After the borrowers on a $210,000 mortgage died, Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, as trustee, brought a 2019 foreclosure action against their heirs and other defendants concerning Hartford property. The trial court entered a foreclosure-by-sale judgment in December 2024, found a debt of $210,217.79, and scheduled a March 8, 2025 sale.
Joseph A. Anderson appeared for the first time on February 28, 2025 and moved to open the judgment, seeking a 90-day delay. He asserted that anticipated income from his bio-energy business would allow him to pay the debt, but submitted no supporting evidence. After a hearing at which Joseph again offered only that assertion, the trial court denied the motion. Amy L. Anderson appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed. The trial court reasonably denied Joseph’s motion because he had long known of the foreclosure yet failed to participate, and he did not present documentary or testimonial evidence supporting his claimed ability to pay the debt within 90 days.
The court rejected Amy’s argument that the trial judge was required to solicit evidence from Joseph. The burden to support a motion to open rested on Joseph. It also held that the due-process reasoning of Haines v. Kerner did not apply: unlike the litigant in Haines, Joseph received a hearing and an opportunity to offer proof. Section 49-15 did not govern because it applies to strict-foreclosure judgments, not foreclosure-by-sale judgments.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking to open a foreclosure-by-sale judgment must substantiate claimed grounds for relief.
- A trial court has no sua sponte duty to elicit evidence or an offer of proof from the movant.
- A hearing and opportunity to present evidence satisfy due process even when a self-represented party fails to offer supporting proof.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the broad discretion Connecticut trial courts retain over motions to open foreclosure judgments and the importance of finality. A borrower or heir seeking more time to pay must provide evidence, rather than an unsupported promise of future funds.