Northeast Sav., F.A. v. Hintlian
Citation | 241 Conn. 269,696 A.2d 315 |
Decision Date | 03 June 1997 |
Docket Number | No. SC,SC |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Parties | NORTHEAST SAVINGS, F.A. v. Sirvart K. HINTLIAN et al. 15536. |
Richard P. Weinstein, with whom were Nathan A. Schatz, West Hartford, and, on the brief, Gail P. Ferris, Longmeadow, MA, for appellants (named defendant et al.).
Leanne M. Kinsley, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and McDONALD, JJ.
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether General Statutes § 49-25, 1 which establishes procedures relative to the appraisal of property for which a judgment of foreclosure by sale has been rendered, violates the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. 2 The trial court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale of certain real property owned by the defendants Sirvart K. Hintlian and John Hintlian (defendants) 3 and, as required by § 49-25, appointed a person to conduct the sale and an appraiser to appraise the property. Before the sale was conducted, the defendants moved to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale, claiming that the appraisal procedure set forth in § 49-25 violated their due process rights. The trial court denied the defendants' motion, and the defendants appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. We transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c) and now affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The relevant facts are undisputed. In February, 1980, the defendants executed a promissory note for $61,500 in favor of Hartford Federal Savings and Loan Association (Hartford Federal), the predecessor in interest to the plaintiff, Northeast Savings, F.A. 4 As security for the note, Sirvart Hintlian executed a mortgage in favor of Hartford Federal on real property located at 91 Goff Road in Wethersfield.
In April, 1993, the defendants defaulted on their payments to the plaintiff and, thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action. On December 11, 1995, the trial court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale and ordered a sale date of February 17, 1996. 5 The judgment, in accordance with the requirements of § 49-25, also contained a provision appointing a disinterested appraiser to appraise the property and to file his appraisal with the clerk of the court not later than ten days prior to the sale date.
On December 19, 1995, the defendants filed a motion to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale, claiming that the procedure set forth in § 49-25 violated their due process rights because that procedure "denied [them] a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time in regard to the valuation process." Specifically, the defendants claimed that § 49-25 is constitutionally infirm because it: (1) does not require that a copy of the appraisal be sent to the defendants; and (2) contains no provision for an evidentiary hearing at which the defendants may challenge the appraisal and otherwise present evidence regarding the value of the property. The trial court, by endorsement order, sustained the plaintiff's objection to the defendants' motion to open the judgment.
On May 10, 1996, the defendants filed a motion for articulation of the trial court's denial of their motion to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale. In its articulation, the court rejected the defendants' notice claim, stating that because the court-ordered appraisal was to be filed with the court, it would be "readily accessible to the parties." The court also rejected the defendants' contention that § 49-25 deprives them of an opportunity to be heard regarding the value of the property, stating that the defendants "will have the right to put on any appraisal or other evidence to persuade the court to deny the [plaintiff's] motion [to approve the sale]." Thus, the court concluded, the "defendant[§ have] ample opportunities to contest the valuation of the subject property."
On appeal, the defendants assert that the trial court improperly denied their motion to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale, claiming, as they did in the trial court, that § 49-25 violates their due process rights under the state and federal constitutions. 6 We are not persuaded by the defendants' arguments.
We begin our review of the defendants' claim by noting that (Citations omitted.) Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Tucker, 196 Conn. 172, 176-77, 491 A.2d 1084, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920, 106 S.Ct. 250, 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985). Furthermore, our review of the defendants' due process claim is guided by the well established principle that a (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Society for Savings v. Chestnut Estates, Inc., 176 Conn. 563, 569, 409 A.2d 1020 (1979); see also Fleming v. Garnett, 231 Conn. 77, 88, 646 A.2d 1308 (1994) ( ).
The defendants first contend that § 49-25 fails to afford them adequate notice of the court-ordered appraisal because there is no requirement that they be sent a copy of that document. We agree with the trial court that the defendants' right to notice of the appraisal is satisfied by virtue of its filing with the clerk of the court as provided for in § 49-25. An appraisal filed with the court in accordance with § 49-25 is accessible as a public document to anyone who wishes to view it, including the defendants. Further, the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale contained the name of the court-appointed appraiser and the date by which his return was to be filed with the court. Because the filing procedure mandated by § 49-25 affords the defendants adequate notice of the appraisal, that procedure does not run afoul of constitutional requirements.
The defendants further claim that § 49-25 does not afford them a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the valuation of the property because the statute fails to provide for an evidentiary hearing at which they may challenge the appraisal, either through examination of the appraiser or by the introduction of other evidence regarding the value of the property, or both. It is true that § 49-25 does not expressly empower a foreclosure court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on an application by a party seeking to contest the court-appointed appraiser's valuation of a mortgaged property. We disagree with the defendants' conclusion, however, that the trial court lacks the authority under § 49-25 to conduct such a hearing upon proper application by the mortgagor and prior to the court's action on the mortgagee's motion to approve the sale of the property.
In resolving the defendants' claim, we consider § 49-25 in light of the principles governing foreclosure proceedings generally and the appraisal process in particular. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Burgos, 227 Conn. 116, 120, 629 A.2d 410 (1993). Furthermore, because the appraisal process outlined in § 49-25 is "primarily intended to give the court a valuation by which to judge the fairness of the highest bid received"; Bryson v. Newtown Real Estate & Development Corp., 153 Conn. 267, 274, 216 A.2d 176 (1965); it provides the trial court with "guidance on the ... question of whether to approve the sale...." 7 New England Savings Bank v. Lopez, 227 Conn. 270, 279, 630 A.2d 1010 (1993); see also Fidelity Trust Co. v. Irick, 206 Conn. 484, 490, 538 A.2d 1027 (1988) ( ). If the procedure outlined in § 49-25 is to accomplish this end fairly and equitably, then a mortgagor must be afforded the opportunity to challenge the court-ordered appraisal prior to a final determination by the court regarding the sale of the property.
The plaintiff maintains that the defendants do not have a constitutionally protected due process right to a hearing to challenge the court-ordered appraisal prior to the trial court's approval of the sale. In support of this contention, the plaintiff relies on New England Savings Bank v. Lopez, supra, 227 Conn. 270, 630 A.2d 1010, in which we concluded that although mortgagors generally have "a protected property interest in the proper measurement of any deficiency judgment that may be rendered...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Ct. Capital v. Homes of Westport
...afford review to appeals from the denial of a motion to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale. See, e.g., Northeast Savings, F.A. v. Hintlian, 241 Conn. 269, 271, 696 A.2d 315 (1997) (granting review of trial court's denial of motion to open of foreclosure by sale and concluding no due pro......
-
Rustici v. Malloy, No. (X02) CV 97-0164460S (CT 7/1/2004)
...opportunity to be heard before the issues are decided." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Northeast Savings, FA. v. Hintlian, 241 Conn. 269, 273-74, 696 A.2d 315 (1997). The question of whether the government has deprived a citizen of a liberty or property interest is only the first step ......
-
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Casacola
... ... 322, 326, 71 A.3d 541 (2013); see Northeast Savings, F.A ... v. Hintlian, 241 Conn. 269, 275, 696 A.2d 315 ... ...
-
State v. Doe
...reasonably accords with legislature's underlying intent); (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Northeast Savings, F.A. v. Hintlian, 241 Conn. 269, 273, 696 A.2d 315 (1997). II The defendant initially claims that the statutory designation of a "victim" pursuant to the family violence statutes......