April 25, 2017
DaSilva, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Marc J. Grenier,
for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
Jonathan A. Adamec, for the appellee (plaintiff).
DiPentima, C. J., and Keller and Graham, Js.
plaintiff bank, as trustee, sought to foreclose a mortgage on
certain real property owned by the defendant mortgagors.
Following the trial court's rendering of a judgment of
strict foreclosure, the plaintiff filed a notice with the
court that the defendants had commenced a bankruptcy
proceeding, thereby staying the judgment. Thereafter, the
bankruptcy court issued an order granting the plaintiff
relief from the automatic stay, and the plaintiff filed a
motion with the trial court to reenter the judgment and to
reset the law days. In support of its motion, the plaintiff
submitted an updated calculation of debt with an attached
affidavit of debt from its servicing agent, B. The
calculation of debt was less than the calculation of debt
that the plaintiff previously had submitted approximately two
years earlier, despite the accrual of interest. At the
hearing on the plaintiff's motion, the defendants'
counsel argued that the court should not rely on B's
affidavit in calculating the outstanding debt. The trial
court inquired of counsel as to how the defendants were
harmed by the more advantageous updated calculation of debt,
and whether counsel had any basis on which to challenge
B's affidavit. In response, counsel stated that B's
affidavit was inconsistent with the prior affidavit and he
requested an evidentiary hearing on the matter, but indicated
that he would not offer any evidence to contradict B's
affidavit. Thereafter, the trial court declined counsel's
request for an evidentiary hearing, reentered the judgment of
strict foreclosure, reset the law days, and calculated the
outstanding debt relying on B's affidavit. On appeal, the
defendants challenged the trial court's reliance on
B's affidavit in calculating their outstanding debt.
that the trial court properly relied on B's affidavit in
calculating the outstanding debt, the defendants on appeal
having failed to articulate any colorable claim of prejudice
by the court's decision: although the updated calculation
of debt with B's attached affidavit was inconsistent with
the one that the plaintiff previously had submitted, the
updated calculation of debt was less than the prior
calculation of debt, and the defendants did not rebut the
plaintiff's contention that there was effectively no harm
to them; moreover, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing on
the matter in light of the defendants' affirmation that
they would not offer any additional evidence to challenge the
figures set forth in B's affidavit.
to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the
named defendant et al., brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the defendants
were defaulted for failure to plead; thereafter, the court,
Adams, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for
ajudgment of strict foreclosure and rendered a judgment of
foreclosure by sale; subsequently, the court, Mintz,
J., granted the motion to open the judgment filed by the
named defendant et al. and rendered a judgment of strict
foreclosure; thereafter, the court, Povodator, J.,
granted the plaintiff's motion to reenter the judgment
and to reset the law days, and the named defendant et al.
appealed to this court. Affirmed.
defendants Athina Savvidis and Anastasios
Savvidis appeal from the judgment of strict
foreclosure reentered by the trial court in favor of the
plaintiff, Bank of New York, as trustee,  following the
lifting of a bankruptcy stay. On appeal, the defendants
contend that the trial court improperly relied on an
affidavit furnished by the plaintiff in calculating the
outstanding debt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
appeal concerns real property owned by the defendants and
known as 106B Comstock Hill Avenue in Norwalk (property). On
April 14, 2003, the defendants executed a promissory note
(note) in favor of America's Wholesale
Lender in the principal amount of $550, 000. The
note was secured by a mortgage deed on the property
October 3, 2006, the plaintiff commenced this foreclosure
action in its capacity as owner and holder of the note and
mortgage. The operative complaint, the plaintiff's
January 31, 2007 amended complaint, alleged in relevant part
that the note was in default, that the defendants had been
provided written notice thereof, and that the defendants had
failed to cure that default. Accordingly, the plaintiff
sought to ‘‘declare [the] note to be due in full
and to foreclose the mortgage securing said note.''
Over the next decade, multiple judgments of foreclosure were
entered by the trial court, only to be stayed by the filing
of bankruptcy petitions by the defendants under title 11,
chapter 13, of the United States Code. See U.S. Bank
National Assn., Trustee v. Works, 160 Conn.App.
49, 52, 124 A.3d 935 (filing of bankruptcy petition pursuant
to title 11 operates ‘‘as an automatic stay of
the plaintiff's foreclosure action''), cert.
denied, 320 Conn. 904, 127 A.3d 188 (2015).
to this appeal are the events subsequent to the rendering of
a judgment of strict foreclosure by the court on June 8,
2015. On September 9, 2015, the plaintiff, in accordance with
General Statutes § 49-15 (b), filed a notice that the
defendants had commenced yet another bankruptcy proceeding,
thereby staying the judgment of foreclosure recently
reentered by the trial court. On January 7, 2016, the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut
issued an order granting relief from that automatic stay
‘‘to permit the [plaintiff] to exercise [its]
rights, if any, with respect to [the property] in accordance
with applicable non-bankruptcy law.'' The plaintiff
thereafter filed ...