*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
RCN CAPITAL, LLC v. SUNFORD PROPERTIES AND

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL.

(AC 42184)

Lavine, Alvord and Lavery, Js.

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 49-1), ‘‘[t]he foreclosure of a mortgage is a bar to any

further action upon the mortgage debt, note or obligation against the

person or persons who are liable for the payment thereof who are made

parties to the foreclosure . . . .’’

The plaintiff sought to foreclose, inter alia, a mortgage on certain real

property owned by the defendant S Co. and to collect on a personal

guarantee by the defendant L. S Co. had executed a promissory note

in the amount of $800,000 in favor of the plaintiff, which was secured

by a mortgage on the subject property, and L executed a guarantee

agreement in which he personally guaranteed all sums due under the

note, including attorney’s fees and costs. Following S Co.’s default on

the note, the plaintiff commenced this action by way of a three count

complaint, and the trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure

as to the first two counts. Thereafter, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s

motion for a deficiency judgment against S Co., and the parties stipulated

that there was a deficiency of $449,441.88, including attorney’s fees and

costs. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment

as to liability on count three of the complaint, which was directed against

L and sought to collect on his personal guarantee of the note. The

defendants filed an objection to the motion, contending that the plaintiff

was barred from recovering from L pursuant to § 49-1 and the statute

(§ 49-14) that provides a limited exception to § 49-1. The trial court

granted the motion for summary judgment, concluding, inter alia, that

§ 49-1 had no effect on the plaintiff’s ability to recover monetary damages

from L following the judgment of strict foreclosure. Thereafter, the trial

court granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as to count three of

the complaint and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the

amount of $531,938.98. On the defendants’ appeal to this court, held:

1. The defendants could not prevail on their claim that the trial count

improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on count three

of its complaint, which was based on their contention that, pursuant to

§§ 49-1 and 49-14, the plaintiff was barred from recovering on L’s personal guarantee; in light of binding precedent, this court concluded that

the trial court properly enforced L’s personal guarantee, as the bar

pursuant to § 49-1 applies only to those individuals or entities who are

made or could have been made parties to the foreclosure, and, because

L was a guarantor, he was not a party to the foreclosure and could not

properly have been made a party to it, and, therefore, § 49-1 did not

have an effect on the plaintiff’s ability to recover money damages from

L under count three of the complaint.

2. Contrary to the defendants’ claim that the trial court improperly held

them jointly and severally liable for the judgment on L’s personal guarantee, the reference to joint and several liability in the written order

prepared by the court clerk was a scrivener’s error, as the court’s judgment pertained only to L’s personal guarantee under count three of

the complaint.

Argued October 15, 2019—officially released April 14, 2020

Procedural History

Action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage on certain

real property owned by the named defendant, and for

other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial

district of New London, where the court, Cosgrove, J.,

rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure; thereafter,

the court, Nazzaro, J., opened and vacated the judg-
ment in part, and the plaintiff withdrew the action as

to the defendant Kwok L. Sang; subsequently, the court,

Nazzaro, J., granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deficiency judgment and rendered judgment thereon; thereafter, the court, Nazzaro, J., granted the plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment as to liability on count

three of the complaint; subsequently, the court, Hon.

Joseph Q. Koletsky, judge trial referee, denied the

motion for nonsuit filed by the named defendant et al.,

granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as to count

three of the complaint and rendered judgment for the

plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed to this

court. Appeal dismissed in part; affirmed.

Edward Bona, for the appellants (defendants).

Jon C. Leary, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

LAVERY, J. In this action to foreclosure two mortgages and to collect on a personal guarantee, the defendants Sunford Properties & Development, LLC (Sunford) and Janny Lam1 appeal from the judgment of the

trial court, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, RCN Capital, LLC. The defendants claim that the trial court

improperly (1) allowed the plaintiff to pursue a claim

for monetary damages against Lam that was more than

the amount to which the parties had stipulated to be

the amount of the deficiency and (2) rendered judgment

against all defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable on Lam’s guarantee.2 We affirm the judgment

of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. On June 28, 2012, Sunford executed

and delivered to the plaintiff a commercial promissory

note in the amount of $600,000, which was later modified to $800,000. In conjunction with this note, Sunford

also executed and delivered a commercial mortgage

deed and security agreement for 352 Main Street, Norwich (Main Street property). At the same time, Kwok

L. Sang guaranteed repayment of the sums due on the

note executed by Sunford by way of a guarantee agreement and mortgage deed for 86-92 Water Street, Norwich (Water Street property). Meanwhile, Lam personally guaranteed all sums due under the note, including

costs and attorney’s fees, by way of a guarantee

agreement.

On January 14, 2015, the plaintiff commenced this

action by writ of summons and complaint. In its second

revised complaint dated December 10, 2015, the plaintiff

sought, in count one, to foreclose on the Main Street

property; in count two, to foreclose on the Water Street

property, with a specific request for repayment of sums

due under the note guaranteed by the limited guarantee

agreement entered into by Sang; and, in count three,

to collect on any outstanding sums pursuant to Lam’s

personal guarantee. On May 16, 2016, the court rendered

a judgment of strict foreclosure as to both the Main

Street property and the Water Street property.3

On October 27, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for

a deficiency judgment against Sunford. The motion was

granted on March 8, 2017, and, on that same date, the

parties stipulated that there was a deficiency in the

amount of $449,441.88, which included appraisal and

attorney’s fees. On October 31, 2016, the plaintiff moved

for summary judgment as to count three of its complaint, which was brought against Lam for the personal

guarantee of the promissory note. The defendants filed

an objection to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and a supporting memorandum of law, in which

Lam, in particular, contended that the plaintiff had

failed to obtain a proper deficiency judgment and, there-
fore, was barred from recovery pursuant to General

Statutes §§ 49-1 and 49-14.4 Lam further argued that

‘‘[a]lthough . . . [Lam] was named as a party [to the

foreclosure action] . . . [the plaintiff] appears to seek

the collection of excess amounts due under the note

postforeclosure. The record also reflects that it has

been more than [thirty] days since the plaintiff obtained

title to the properties . . . .’’

Shortly after their objection was filed on November

15, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss count three

of the complaint. Asserting similar arguments to those

raised in the objection, the defendants argued that the

plaintiff’s claim had been rendered moot by operation

of §§ 49-1 and 49-14, and, therefore, the court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction. The court heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

and the objection thereto on December 5, 2016.

On February 17, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment as to the personal liability of Lam under count three of the complaint.

Addressing the defendants’ arguments from their

motion to dismiss, the court explained that the plaintiff

is not barred from holding Lam personally liable

because § 49-1 does not apply to a guarantor of a debt.

Citing to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winthrop

Properties, LLC, 312 Conn. 662, 677, 94 A.3d 622 (2014),

the court stated that, ‘‘due to the separate and distinct

liability of a guarantor . . . in the absence of a statute

expressly pertaining to guarantors, such secondary obligors are not proper parties to a claim seeking the foreclosure of a mortgage and their obligations are not

limited by the extinguishment of the mortgagor’s rights

and obligations.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

The court concluded that § 49-1 had no effect on the

plaintiff’s ability to recover monetary damages from

Lam following the judgment of strict foreclosure. Thus,

the court concluded that the defendants’ contention

that § 49-1 was a bar to the plaintiff’s claim was inapplicable and insufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie

case as to its entitlement to recover from Lam.

As a result of the court’s ruling on the plaintiff’s

motion, on September 6, 2018, the plaintiff filed a

motion for judgment as to the personal liability of Lam

under the third count of the complaint, seeking monetary damages in the amount of $531,938.98. On September 21, 2018, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion

and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the

amount of $449,441.88 in damages and $82,497.10 in

prejudgment interest, for a total of $531,938.98. This

appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

On appeal, Lam claims that the trial court’s judgment

on count three of the complaint, as to Lam’s personal

liability, should be reversed because the plaintiff was

barred from recovery pursuant to §§ 49-1 and 49-14.
Specifically, Lam argues that the plaintiff is barred

because it (1) agreed to a stipulated deficiency judgment prior to the court’s ruling on the motion for a

deficiency judgment and (2) failed to file a motion seeking a deficiency judgment against Lam, personally,

within the statutorily mandated time frame. We disagree

and conclude that the trial court properly enforced

Lam’s personal guarantee.

The issues set forth on appeal require this court to

interpret and apply the statutory language of §§ 49-1

and 49-14. ‘‘The interpretation and application of a statute . . . involves a question of law over which our

review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Griswold v. Camputaro, 177 Conn. App. 779, 791, 173

A.3d 959 (2017), aff’d, 331 Conn. 701, 207 A.3d 512

(2019).

Before we address the merits of Lam’s claim, we set

forth certain fundamental principles concerning real

property in regard to foreclosure actions. ‘‘The purpose

of [a] foreclosure is to extinguish the mortgagor’s equitable right of redemption that he retained when he

granted legal title to his property to the mortgagee following the execution of the mortgage.’’ JP Morgan

Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winthrop Properties, LLC, supra,

312 Conn. 673. It is well established that, when a mortgagor defaults on an underlying note, ‘‘the plaintiff is

entitled to pursue its remedy at law on the [note], or

to pursue its remedy in equity upon the mortgage, or

to pursue both.’’ Hartford National Bank & Trust Co.

v. Kotkin, 185 Conn. 579, 581, 441 A.2d 593 (1981). When

a plaintiff pursues a remedy for foreclosure, ‘‘Connecticut follows the title theory of mortgages, which provides that on the execution of a mortgage on real property, the mortgagee holds legal title and the mortgagor

holds equitable title to the property. . . . As the holder

of equitable title, also called the equity of redemption,

the mortgagor has the right to redeem the legal title on

the performance of certain conditions contained within

the mortgage instrument.’’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB v. Charles, 95

Conn. App. 315, 322–23, 898 A.2d 197, cert. denied, 279

Conn. 909, 902 A.2d 1069 (2006).

One such remedy at law for a default on the mortgage

is the enforcement of the underlying note. See New

Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251, 265–66

n.23, 708 A.2d 1378 (1998). ‘‘A promissory note is simply

a written contract for the payment of money.’’ (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Ankerman v. Mancuso, 271

Conn. 772, 777, 860 A.2d 244 (2004). Therefore, any

deficiency judgment sought by a plaintiff in conjunction

with a foreclosure is a result of the contractual obligation between the parties to the promissory note. See

Eichman v. J & J Building Co., 216 Conn. 443, 453, 582

A.2d 182 (1990) (‘‘deficiency judgment hearings more

closely resemble suits for collection’’)
In addition to remedies against a mortgagor, when

the payment of a promissory note is safeguarded by a

separate guarantee, the mortgagee may initiate a claim

against the guarantors to recover the remaining debt

of the mortgagor. See Bank of Boston Connecticut v.

Schlesinger, 220 Conn. 152, 157–58, 595 A.2d 872 (1991).

‘‘[A] guarantee is a promise to answer for the debt,

default or miscarriage of another.’’ Regency Savings

Bank v. Westmark Partners, 59 Conn. App. 160, 164,

756 A.2d 299 (2000). This obligation is ‘‘separate from

the contractual agreement between the lender and borrower, a guarantee imports the existence of two different obligations: the obligation of the borrower and the

obligation of the guarantor.’’ JP Morgan Chase Bank,

N.A. v. Winthrop Properties, LLC, supra, 312 Conn.

675. ‘‘[Guarantees] are . . . distinct and essentially different contracts; they are between different parties,

they may be executed at different times and by separate

instruments, and the nature of the promises and the

liability of the promisors differ substantially . . . . The

contract of the guarantor is his own separate undertaking in which the principal does not join.’’ (Citations

omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Carpenter

v. Thompson, 66 Conn. 457, 463–64, 34 A. 105 (1895).

As a result of this separate obligation, ‘‘[a] mortgagee

cannot enforce a mortgage obligation in a foreclosure

proceeding against a guarantor because a guarantor is

not a party to such obligation.’’ JP Morgan Chase Bank,

N.A. v. Winthrop Properties, LLC, supra, 682.

Next, in addressing the merits of the present case,

we rely on JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winthrop

Properties, LLC, supra, 312 Conn. 665, in which our

Supreme Court addressed the issue of ‘‘whether . . .

§ 49-1, under which the foreclosure of a mortgage is

a bar to further action against persons liable for the

payment of the mortgage debt, note or obligation who

are, or may be, made parties to the foreclosure, applies

to guarantors of the mortgage note.’’ (Footnote omitted.) In that case, the defendant borrowed $1,012,500

from Washington Mutual Bank. Id., 666. The defendant

then executed a promissory note and a mortgage on

real property in New Haven. Id. The guarantors of the

loan executed a personal guarantee in which they

assumed joint and several liability for the repayment

of the loan. Id. After the defendant defaulted on the

note, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as a successor in

interest to Washington Mutual Bank, sought to foreclose the mortgage and to enforce the personal guarantee. Id. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the liability of the defendant and

the guarantors and, thereafter, rendered a judgment of

strict foreclosure. Id., 667. The plaintiff then filed a

motion for a deficiency judgment, to which the guarantors filed an objection, arguing that, ‘‘because the plaintiff had not filed a motion for a deficiency judgment

within thirty days of the running of the law days as
required by § 49-14, the plaintiff was barred by § 49-1

from taking any further action to collect money damages from the guarantors.’’ Id.

Presented with the question of ‘‘whether § 49-1 evidences a clear intent to extinguish the otherwise independent obligations of the guarantors by making them

effectively necessary parties to a claim that seeks the

strict foreclosure of a mortgage’’; id., 678; the court

interpreted the term ‘‘obligation’’ in § 49-1, when read

in context with the entire statute, to exclude a guarantee. Id., 672. The court interpreted ‘‘obligation’’ narrowly, explaining that ‘‘if the term ‘mortgage’ modifies

not only the term ‘debt,’ but also the terms ‘note’ and

‘obligation,’ the latter could refer to obligations that are

secured by a mortgage but not secondary obligations

that provide further security, such as a guarantee that

obligates payment of a promissory note secured by a

mortgage.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Id., 671. As such, the

court concluded that ‘‘guarantors are not obligated on

a mortgage because they have a separate and distinct

contractual obligation from the promissory note and

mortgage under their guarantee. . . . [T]hey are not

‘parties to the foreclosure,’ irrespective of whether the

mortgagee pursues a claim against the guarantors in

the same cause of action in which it pursues foreclosure

of the mortgage.’’ Id., 673. Moreover, the court concluded that guarantors are not subject to the preclusion

pursuant to § 49-1 because ‘‘[d]ue to the separate and

distinct liability . . . in the absence of a statute

expressly pertaining to guarantors, such secondary obligors are not proper parties to a claim seeking the foreclosure of a mortgage and their obligations are not

limited by the extinguishment of the mortgagor’s rights

and obligations.’’ Id., 677. Thus, the trial court’s rendering of strict foreclosure in JP Morgan Chase Bank,

N.A., ‘‘had no effect on the plaintiff’s ability to recover

damages for the remaining unpaid debt from the guarantors . . . because the guarantors were not parties to

the plaintiff’s foreclosure claim . . . the guarantors’

obligation having arisen separately under their guarantee.’’ Id., 686.

The present case is controlled by JP Morgan Chase

Bank, N.A. Here, this court is presented not only with

an analogous factual scenario, in that both cases concern the enforcement of a personal guarantee on a

promissory note, but is also presented with the same

issue that was resolved in that case. Specifically, Lam

contends that the plaintiff was barred, pursuant to

§§ 49-1 and 49-14, from recovering on the personal guarantee because the stipulated judgment applied to all

matters, including count three of the plaintiff’s complaint. Lam asserts that the stipulated judgment was

‘‘accepted and openly submitted to fully resolve [all]

matters between the parties after the passage of the

title of the properties.’’ Lam further contends that the

trial court went above and beyond the stipulated judg-
ment in holding Lam liable for more than the stipulated

amount, thus violating existing law and public policy.

Lastly, Lam asserts that the plaintiff failed to file a

motion seeking a deficiency judgment specifically

against Lam personally, within the statutorily mandated

time frame.

Lam, however, fails to take into account the binding

authority set forth in JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Applying our Supreme Court’s holding to the present

case, it is clear that Lam’s contentions are incorrect.

In particular, Lam, as additional collateral for the obligations due under the promissory note, executed and

delivered to the plaintiff a personal guarantee. The guarantee explicitly named Lam as a ‘‘guarantor’’ and

assured the ‘‘prompt payment and performance of a

Certain Non-revolving Note made by [Sunford].’’ The

guarantee was signed by Lam on June 28, 2012.

Because Lam was named a ‘‘guarantor’’ and assured

the prompt payment of the note, Lam had a separate

and distinct obligation from that evidenced by the note.

Our Supreme Court has stated: ‘‘A mortgagee cannot

enforce a mortgage obligation in a foreclosure proceeding against a guarantor because a guarantor is not a

party to such an obligation. . . . The guarantors have

no legal interest in the property securing the note and

have no equitable or statutory right of redemption in the

property. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not properly

make the guarantors parties to the foreclosure claim

because it could not seek to extinguish the guarantors’

right of redemption, which is the purpose of foreclosure, nor in the alternative seek to enforce the note

against them. The plaintiff only could seek that relief

from the defendant, who had pledged its property as

security for the contract between it and the plaintiff.

Although the guarantors have a general interest in the

foreclosure due to their separate and distinct obligation

under the guarantee to pay any remaining amount due

on the underlying debt, that interest does not render

them parties to the foreclosure.’’ (Footnotes omitted.)

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winthrop Properties,

LLC, supra, 312 Conn. 682–83. Therefore, the bar pursuant to § 49-1 applies solely to those individuals or entities who are made or could have been made ‘‘parties

to the foreclosure.’’ Because Lam was a guarantor, Lam

was not a party to the foreclosure and could not properly have been made a party to it. Accordingly, the trial

court properly held Lam personally liable because § 49-

1 did not have an effect on the plaintiff’s ability to

recover money damages from Lam under count three

of the complaint.5

We briefly address the defendants’ claim that the

court improperly held them jointly and severally liable

for the judgment on Lam’s personal guarantee. This

claim is directly related to a statement set forth in the

court’s September 21, 2018 order, stating that ‘‘judgment
enters in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants

jointly and severally in the amount of $449,441.88 in

damages [and] $82,497.10 in prejudgment interest for

a total judgment of $531,938.98.’’ This order was prepared by the court clerk and was not signed by the

judge. We conclude that the reference to joint and several liability was a scrivener’s error. See generally Dan

v. Dan, 315 Conn. 1, 7 n.7, 105 A.3d 118 (2014) (misstatement in court order prepared by court clerk contained

scrivener’s error).6

It is clear from the record that the plaintiff had filed

a motion for judgment on count three of the complaint,

which was specifically brought against Lam only, and

that it had filed an affidavit of debt, addressing the

claim for damages under Lam’s guarantee.7 A review of

the transcript of the hearing in damages reveals that

the only matter argued before the trial court at that

time was Lam’s personal guarantee.8 Although the written order incorrectly referenced ‘‘joint and several liability,’’ we conclude that this reference was a scrivener’s

error, as the judgment pertained to only Lam’s personal

guarantee under count three of the complaint. Additionally, the record reveals that the plaintiff, shortly after

the court clerk issued this order, sent a certified notice

of judgment to counsel for both Lam and Sunford, which

provided in relevant part: ‘‘The plaintiff in the aboveentitled action hereby gives notice that on September

21, 2018, the court entered a judgment in its favor in

the amount of $531,938.98 under count three of the

second revised complaint . . . against . . . Lam.’’

The appeal is dismissed with respect to Kwok L. Sang;

the judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 Kwok L. Sang also appealed from the judgment of the trial court; however,

the plaintiff withdrew the second count of the complaint, which was directed

against Sang. Due to this withdrawal, Sang is not a party to the underlying

action and, therefore, lacks standing to appeal. See M.U.N. Capital, LLC v.

National Hall Properties, LLC, 163 Conn. App. 372, 376, 136 A.3d 665 (defendant corporation lacked standing to appeal because plaintiff withdrew action

against it such that it was not party to underlying action), cert. denied, 321

Conn. 902, 136 A.3d 1272 (2016). The parties were notified prior to oral

argument before this court to be prepared to address Sang’s jurisdictional

issue. See, e.g., State v. Connor, 321 Conn. 350, 371, 138 A.3d 265 (2016)

(‘‘if the Appellate Court decides to address an issue not previously raised

or briefed, it may do so only after requesting supplemental briefs from the

parties or allowing argument regarding that issue’’ (internal quotation marks

omitted)). Accordingly, the appeal as to Sang is dismissed. We therefore

refer in this opinion to Sunford and Lam collectively as the defendants and

individually by name where appropriate.

2 The defendants also contend that the trial court (1) improperly rendered

judgment while their motion to dismiss the third count of the operative

complaint was pending, (2) abused its discretion by not taking judicial notice

of the judgment in RCN Capital, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Superior

Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-17-6076972-S (August 27,

2018); see RCN Capital, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Docket No. 42082

(Conn. App.) (pending appeal filed September 11, 2018); and (3) abused its

discretion by denying the defendants’ motion for nonsuit.

After thoroughly examining the record in the present case and fully considering the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, we conclude that the aforementioned claims are without merit. In regard to the defendants’ first claim, we

are aware that when a motion to dismiss challenges the court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, it must be addressed when brought to the court’s attention.

See Practice Book § 10-33. Although the court did not directly rule on the

motion to dismiss, it adequately addressed and rejected the arguments from

the motion in its February 17, 2017 memorandum of decision, granting the

plaintiff’s motion for judgment.

3 The court found that the defendants owed $1,040,845.02. The fair market

value of both properties was valued at a total of $977,000.

On November 14, 2016, the court opened and vacated the judgment of

strict foreclosure as to count two concerning Sang and the Water Street

property, and the claim against Sang was withdrawn. The judgment was

vacated due to a foreclosure by sale by the city of Norwich. See Norwich

v. Sang, Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. KNLCV-15-6023942-S (May 12, 2016). Accordingly, once the judgment as to Sang

was vacated, and the claim against him was withdrawn, he no longer was

a party to the current action. See footnote 1 of this opinion.

4 General Statutes § 49-1 provides in relevant part: ‘‘The foreclosure of a

mortgage is a bar to any further action upon the mortgage debt, note or

obligation against the person or persons who are liable for the payment

thereof who are made parties to the foreclosure and also against any person

or persons upon whom service of process to constitute an action in personam

could have been made within this state at the commencement of the foreclosure; but the foreclosure is not a bar to any further action upon the mortgage

debt, note or obligation as to any person liable for the payment thereof

upon whom service of process to constitute an action in personam could

not have been made within this state at the commencement of the foreclosure. . . .’’

‘‘Section 49-14 (a) furnishes a limited exception to [§ 49-1] for strict foreclosures, providing that ‘[a]t any time within thirty days after the time limited

for redemption has expired, any party to a mortgage foreclosure may file a

motion seeking a deficiency judgment.’ Therefore, once a mortgagee strictly

forecloses on a mortgage and obtains title to the property following the

running of the law days, § 49-1 extinguishes all rights of the mortgagee with

respect to the ‘mortgage debt, note or obligation’ against persons who are

or could have been made parties to the foreclosure, except as provided in

§ 49-14.’’ (Footnotes omitted.) JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winthrop

Properties, LLC, 312 Conn. 662, 670–71, 94 A.3d 622 (2014).

5 Additionally, even though the defendants claim that the plaintiff failed

to meet the statutory time frame for seeking a deficiency judgment pursuant

to § 49-14 (a), the effect of that statute was not implicated because the

plaintiff’s rights were not extinguished under § 49-1.

6

In Dan v. Dan, supra, 315 Conn. 7 n.7, the defendant requested an

articulation from the trial court specifically related to the misstatement

contained in its order, and the trial court stated that it was a scrivener’s

error. In the present case, although the defendants filed a motion for articulation, they did not request the court to articulate this order. Because the

record is clear, we conclude that the order contains a scrivener’s error.

7 Specifically, in its motion for judgment, the plaintiff stated: ‘‘The plaintiff

. . . herein moves that a judgment enter against . . . Lam under count

three of the . . . complaint. A judgment as to liability only entered

against [Lam].’’

8 At the hearing in damages, the plaintiff’s counsel stated in relevant part:

‘‘Your Honor, this [hearing] follows a summary judgment as to liability on

count three of the complaint. [Count three] pertains to a personal guarantee

of . . . Lam. We submitted the affidavit of [the plaintiff] that lists the

updated debt following the foreclosure and the deficiency judgment [in]

count one. So, we’re seeking judgment [of the] amount that [is] listed in

the affidavit of debt.’’