SANDRA M. HIRSCH, TRUSTEE
WILLIAM S. WOERMER
May 17, 2018
to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the
defendant, and for other relief, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, where
the court, Hon. John F. Cronan, judge trial referee,
granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the
defendant's special defenses; thereafter, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment and rendered
judgment in part thereon; subsequently, the court denied the
defendant's motion to open the judgment; thereafter, the
court denied the defendant's motion to amend;
subsequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion
for judgment of foreclosure by sale and rendered judgment
thereon, from which the defendant appealed to this court;
thereafter, the court denied the defendant's motion for
M. Singer, for the appellant (defendant).
Hirsch, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Keller, Elgo and Beach, Js.
defendant, William S. Woermer, appeals from the judgment of
foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of
the plaintiff, Sandra M. Hirsch, Trustee. On appeal, the
defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted the
plaintiff's motion to strike his special defense of
unconscionability and (2) denied his motion to open. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff holds a note from
the defendant, which is now in default, for the original
principal amount of $73, 200 secured by a mortgage on real
property located in Branford. The mortgage was dated March
31, 2015, and recorded on the Branford land records.
plaintiff initiated this foreclosure action on May 3, 2016.
On October 5, 2016, the defendant filed an answer and three
special defenses on the basis of lack of standing, invalid
mortgage, and unconscionability. On October 11, 2016, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and subsequently moved
to strike the defendant's three special defenses on
December 15, 2016. On January 30, 2017, the defendant filed
January 31, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff's
motion to strike. In striking the special defense of
unconscionability, the court stated that ‘‘the
defendant's claim that the initial loan was
‘outrageous and unconscionable' is without any
statutory or case law basis. There is nothing in the record
that indicates that the defendant was tricked or coerced into
entering the original instrument.''
plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings in March, 2017. In support of the motion,
the plaintiff argued that the defendant admitted liability on
the complaint and had no valid special defense. On March 20,
2017, the court granted the plaintiff's motion and
rendered judgment in her favor.
15, 2017, the defendant filed a motion to open the
judgment. In addition, the defendant filed a motion
for permission to amend on May 15, 2017. Specifically, the
defendant requested permission to file a proposed amended
special defense and a counterclaim alleging a violation of
General Statutes § 36a-746 et seq., the Connecticut
Abusive Home Loan Lending Practices Act (act). In response,
the plaintiff filed separate objections on May 25, 2017, to
the defendant's motion to open and the motion to amend.
At the hearing on the motion to open and motion to amend, the
plaintiff argued that the act does not provide a private
right of action; rather the act describes activities that are
regulated by the Commissioner of Banking. Following the
hearing, the court denied both motions on May 31, 2017.
Thereafter, on June 2, 2017, the plaintiff ...