Pac. Funding Tr. 1002 v. Stephenson Residential Servs.
| Docket Number | AC 45425,AC 45426,AC 45462 |
| Decision Date | 25 July 2023 |
| Parties | PACIFIC FUNDING TRUST 1002 v. STEPHENSON RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC PS FUNDING, INC. v. STEPHENSON RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC, ET AL. PS FUNDING, INC. v. STEPHENSON RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Argued May 17, 2023
Procedural History
Action in two cases, to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property of the named defendant, and for other relief brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the named defendant was defaulted for failure to plead, and action, in a third case, to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property of the defendant, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the defendant was defaulted for failure to plead; thereafter, in the third case, the court Spader, J., denied the defendant's motion to open the default; subsequently, in each case, the court Spader, J., rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale, from which the defendant in Docket Nos. 45425 and 45462 and the named defendant in Docket No. 45426 filed separate appeals to this court. Affirmed.
Joseph L. Rini, for the appellants (defendant in Docket Nos. AC 45425 and AC 45462 and named defendant in Docket No. AC 45426).
Elizabeth M. Cristofaro, for the appellees (plaintiff in each case).
Moll, Cradle and DiPentima, Js.
In these three appeals,[1] the named defendant in each case, Stephenson Residential Services, LLC,[2] appeals from the judgments of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the first case, Pacific Funding Trust 1002 (Pacific Funding), and the plaintiff in the second and third cases, PS Funding, Inc. (PS Funding), after the defendant was defaulted in each case. The defendant filed nearly identical appellate briefs and raises the same claims in all three appeals, namely, (1) that the court improperly determined that the defendant's special defenses, as set forth in a pleading it purported to file in each case titled "defendant's answer, special defenses/matters in avoidance and setoffs" (answer and special defenses), were legally insufficient to present a valid defense to a matured mortgage, and (2) whether the special defenses, even if not properly part of the record, sufficiently apprised the court that the defendant was raising a challenge or objection to the amount of the debt, thereby requiring an evidentiary hearing and precluding the court from determining the amount of the debt by affidavit pursuant to Practice Book § 23-18 (a). We affirm the judgment in each appeal.
The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to the defendant's three appeals, all of which involve short-term commercial mortgages. We first set forth the procedural posture of the case underlying the first appeal, Docket No. AC 45425 (first case), and that of the case underlying the second appeal, Docket No. AC 45426 (second case). The first case concerns real property owned by the defendant located at 8 Hillside Avenue in Stamford. On or about July 26, 2018, the defendant executed and delivered to PS Funding a mortgage on the subject property as security for a note executed that same day in favor of PS Funding in the amount of $321,750. The mortgage subsequently was assigned to Pacific Funding, which is the current holder of the note and mortgage. The note matured on September 1, 2020, and the defendant defaulted by failing to make the payment due upon maturity and, thereafter, refused to cure the default despite demands made by Pacific Funding, which commenced a foreclosure action against the defendant on November 12,2021.
The second case, which is procedurally similar to the first case, concerns real property owned by the defendant located at 11 Revere Drive in Stamford. With respect to that property, the defendant similarly executed and delivered to PS Funding a mortgage on the property as security for a note in favor of PS Funding in the amount of $100,100, both of which were executed on or about March 28, 2018. PS Funding is the holder and owner of the mortgage and the note, which matured on April 1, 2020. The defendant defaulted by failing to make the payment due at maturity or any payments thereafter upon demand from PS Funding, which commenced a foreclosure action against the defendant on November 12, 2021, the same date as the first case.
On December 9, 2021, Pacific Funding and PS Funding filed motions for default for failure to appear in the first and second cases, both of which were granted by the court clerk on December 20, 2021. In each of those cases, on January 21, 2022, Pacific Funding and PS Funding filed motions for a judgment of strict foreclosure, and, thereafter, on February 2, 2022, each filed a number of documents, including a bill of costs, an affidavit regarding attorney's fees, an appraisal, an affidavit of debt, and a foreclosure worksheet. Subsequently, on February 7, 2022, counsel for the defendant filed appearances in both cases, along with motions for a judgment of foreclosure by sale. On February 10, 2022, in the first and second cases Pacific Funding and PS Funding filed motions for default for failure to plead, both of which were granted by the court clerk on February 28,2022. The defendant followed by filing objections in both cases to the motions for a judgment of strict foreclosure on March 8, 2022, as well as its answer and special defenses in each case on March 10 and 11, 2022, respectively. Updated affidavits of debt and foreclosure worksheets were filed by Pacific Funding and PS Funding in each case on March 22, 2022, and a joint hearing on both foreclosure matters was held on March 23,2022, at which the court rendered judgments of foreclosure by sale with respect to both properties.
The case underlying the third appeal, Docket No. AC 45462 (third case), concerns real property owned by the defendant located at 45 Riverside Lane in Easton. With respect to that property, the defendant similarly executed and delivered to PS Funding a mortgage on the property as security for a note in favor of PS Funding in the amount of $396,500. The note and mortgage were executed on or about April 5, 2018. PS Funding is the holder and owner of the mortgage and the note, which matured on May 1, 2019. Again, as with the other two mortgages, the defendant defaulted by failing to make the payment due at maturity or any payments thereafter upon demand from PS Funding, which commenced a foreclosure action against the defendant on November 12, 2021, the same day as the first and second cases.
On December 9, 2021, PS Funding filed a motion for default for failure to appear in the third case, which was not acted on until February 7, 2022, when the court denied the motion, as counsel for the defendant filed an appearance that same day along with a motion for a judgment of foreclosure by sale. Prior to that ruling, on January 21, 2022, PS Funding had filed a motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure, and it filed a number of documents on February 2, 2022, which included a bill of costs, an affidavit regarding attorney's fees, an appraisal, an affidavit of debt, and a foreclosure worksheet. PS Funding thereafter filed a motion for default for failure to plead on February 10, 2022, which was granted by the court clerk on February 18, 2022. On March 8, 2022, the defendant filed an objection to the motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure, followed by its answer and special defenses on March 11, 2022. PS Funding filed an updated affidavit of debt and foreclosure worksheet on March 28, 2022. Subsequently, on March 30, 2022, the defendant filed a motion to open the default and to acknowledge its answer and special defenses, along with an objection to the motions for a judgment of foreclosure being acted on prior to the court's resolution of the motion to open and acknowledge the answer. In response, PS Funding filed an objection to the defendant's motion to open on March 31, 2022. At a hearing on the matter held on April 8, 2022, the court denied the defendant's motion to open and rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale with respect to the subject property. These appeals followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant's first claim in all three appeals is that the court improperly determined that its special defenses, as set forth in the answer and special defenses it purported to file in each case, were legally insufficient to present a valid defense to a matured mortgage. In light of the procedural posture of the first and second cases, and because the defendant has not challenged the denial of its motion to open the default in the third case, we do not address the merits of the first claim raised by the defendant in all three appeals.
At the outset, we note that, because our resolution concerning the defendant's first claim in all three appeals involves the construction of relevant rules of practice, our review is plenary. See Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v Bertrand, 140 Conn.App. 646, 655, 59 A.3d 864, cert dismissed, 309 Conn. 905, 68 A.3d 661 (2013). Moreover, because the first and second cases have a similar procedural history, we address them together first. The record shows that, in both the first and second cases, the defendant was defaulted for failure to plead while a motion for a judgment of foreclosure was pending. Such circumstances are governed by Practice Book § 17-32. Pursuant to subsection (a) of § 17-32, "[w]here a defendant is in default for failure to plead . . . the plaintiff may file a written motion for default which shall be acted on by the clerk," which occurred in both cases. Subsection (b) of § 17-32...
To continue reading
Request your trial