First Union National Bank v. Bonito

• Decision Date: 23 February 1999
• Docket Number: (AC 18325)
• Citation: 52 Conn. App. 52,725 A.2d 393
• Parties: FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK v. BENJAMIN BONITO, JR., ET AL.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

52 Conn. App. 52

725 A.2d 393

FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK v. BENJAMIN BONITO, JR., ET AL.

(AC 18325)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Submitted on briefs December 16, 1998.

Officially released February 23, 1999.

O'Connell, C. J., and Landau and Spear, JS. Jerald S. Barber filed a brief for the appellant (named defendant).

Mark L. Bergamo filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this tax lien foreclosure case, the named defendant¹ appeals following the trial court's denial of his motion to open the judgment. The defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to consider the defendant's changed circumstances and to extend the sale date. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record discloses that, pursuant to General Statutes § 12-195h,² the city of New Haven assigned tax liens on the defendant's real estate to the plaintiff. On September 15, 1997, the trial court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale and set March 28, 1998, as the sale date. On March 17, 1998, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment and to extend the sale date. The motion was heard and denied by the trial court on March 26, 1998.

The defendant argued to the trial court that when the foreclosure was ordered he owned the property jointly with his wife, Maria Bonito. In February, 1998, their marriage was dissolved, and, as a result of the dissolution, the defendant became the sole owner of the property. At trial, the defendant contended that the dissolution of his marriage and the fact that he became the sole owner of the property constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant the trial court's opening of the judgment and extending the sale date. We do not agree.

The fact that the defendant's only change in circumstance was his marital status does not constitute good cause. In addition, the defendant did not obtain refinancing, a fact that supports the trial court's decision that good cause was not shown. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Sullivan, 216 Conn. 341, 352-53, 579 A.2d 1054 (1990). In sum, there was no tangible evidence before the trial court that warranted granting the defendant's motion to open the judgment.

"[A] foreclosure action constitutes an equitable proceeding.... In an equitable proceeding, the trial court may examine all relevant factors to ensure that complete justice is done.... The determination of what equity requires in a particular case, the balancing of the equities, is a matter for the discretion of the trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Federal National Mortgage Assn. v. Dicioccio, 51 Conn. App. 343, 344-45, 721 A.2d 569 (1998). This court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's decision when reviewing a claim of abuse of discretion. Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc., 196 Conn. 579, 583, 494 A.2d 573 (1985). "Our review...