BNY Mellon wins as Connecticut appeals court blocks heir’s foreclosure challenge
By late 2024, the lender moved for default against another son who never filed an appearance in five years. The court found the debt at $210,217.79 and the property value at $255,000, and ordered a foreclosure sale for March 8, 2025.
Eight days before the sale, that son surfaced. He filed a motion to reopen, claiming he had recently returned to Connecticut after 31 years overseas and, as founder of an Asia-Pacific bio-energy business, expected income within 90 days that would cover the debt. He attached nothing.
At a March 17, 2025 hearing, he repeated the claim but offered no evidence. The court pressed him: Did he know about the foreclosure? The six-year timeline? “Yes. Yes, Your Honor.” The judge denied the motion, stating that being out of the country “is not an excuse for not participating, either by yourself or having a lawyer look out for your interests here in this country.”
His sister appealed on his behalf. The Appellate Court rejected every argument. She invoked General Statutes section 49-15, but the panel noted that statute applies only to strict foreclosure, not foreclosure by sale. She argued the court should have gathered evidence on her brother’s behalf – the panel disagreed, noting the burden rests on the party seeking to reopen. Her due process claim failed because the trial court held a hearing and gave him full chance to present evidence. He brought none.
For servicers managing reverse mortgage portfolios, the case shows what happens when heirs wait years and try to reopen a foreclosure on promises alone. Courts want documents, not declarations.
