The Connecticut Court of Appeals just issued a decision reversing the judgment of foreclosure emphasizing the importance of compliance with the notice provisions under Practice Book § 17-22 in foreclosure proceedings.
On appeal the Defendant alleged that the judgment should be reversed for three reasons: because (1) the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the foreclosure action, (2) the foreclosure judgment improperly included the debt from a second promissory note, which was not part of the complaint and not properly proven, and (3) the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements in Practice Book § 17-22. The Court of Appeals agreed that the defendant had not been given the required notice and thus reversed the judgment and remanded the case.
This decision underscores that failure to comply with procedural notice requirements can result in the reversal of foreclosure judgments, even if other aspects of the judgment are not contested.
Eastern Connecticut Savings Bank v Venus Development, LLC, et al. 231 Conn.App. 750 (2025)
