Background
The bank brought this mortgage-foreclosure action in 2019, alleging that Patricia and James Savanella had stopped making payments in 2018. The defendants were defaulted for failure to plead in December 2022, and the Superior Court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale in October 2023.
In July 2025, the defendants moved to open the default and set aside the foreclosure judgment. They asserted that the default motion had been served on James’ former attorney, who had died before it was filed, and cited their illnesses and alleged loan-servicer representations that a hardship forbearance was in place. The trial court denied the motion, noting the more than two-and-a-half-year delay after entry of default.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed. Because the motion sought to open a default and foreclosure judgment outside the four-month period, the defendants had to establish a recognized basis for an untimely motion to open, including newly discovered evidence under the applicable standard.
The court declined to review the claimed defective service because the defendants did not substantively brief how it qualified as newly discovered evidence or why it warranted opening the judgment. It likewise declined to review the equitable-relief claim because the briefing offered only abstract and conclusory assertions without meaningful factual and legal analysis.
Key Takeaways
- An untimely motion to open a foreclosure default is subject to the standards governing untimely motions, not the ordinary timely-motion test.
- An appellant must analyze the governing legal standard; merely asserting defective service does not preserve a newly-discovered-evidence claim.
- Equitable arguments in foreclosure appeals require substantive analysis connecting the facts to the governing law.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that foreclosure litigants seeking to reopen long-final defaults must clearly establish a recognized basis for relief and fully brief that basis on appeal. The court did not decide whether service on the deceased attorney was effective; it held that the defendants abandoned that appellate claim through inadequate briefing.