Court Opinion

ID: 9961978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 12:01:50.693737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:38.033813
License: Public Domain

************************************************
   The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
   All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut 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
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       0, 0

         2                           ,0                            0 Conn. App. 1
                   Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc. v. NewRez, LLC

             STONYBROOK GARDENS COOPERATIVE, INC. v.
                          NEWREZ, LLC
                           (AC 45904)
                                   Elgo, Moll and Keller, Js.

                                            Syllabus

         Pursuant to statute (§ 47-258), an association has a statutory lien on a
            condominium or cooperative unit for any assessment attributable to
            that unit, and, in all actions brought to foreclose a lien under that section,
            the lien is prior to first or second security interests encumbering only
            the unit owner’s interest and perfected before the date on which the
            assessment sought to be enforced became delinquent to the extent of
            an amount equal to the common expense assessments, based on the
            periodic budget of the association, which would have become due in
            the absence of acceleration during the nine months immediately preced-
            ing the institution of an action to enforce the association’s lien as well
            as the association’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in enforcing
            its lien.
         The plaintiff, a unit owners association that had previously foreclosed a
            statutory lien in 2021 on a certain unit, which it thereafter purchased
            at a foreclosure sale, commenced the present omitted party action
            against the defendant pursuant to statute (§ 49-30). The defendant was
            the holder of a mortgage on the unit and had a first security interest
            but had been omitted from the plaintiff’s 2021 foreclosure action. The
            plaintiff sought its common charges as foreclosed, court costs and legal
            fees of all current and past court actions, and the costs it incurred in
            remediating the unit as a redemption amount on the unit. The trial court
            defaulted the defendant for failure to appear and granted the plaintiff’s
            motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure, setting the redemption
            amount at $34,410.56. The defendant subsequently filed an appearance
            and a motion to open and vacate the judgment, in which it alleged, inter
            alia, that, had the plaintiff correctly named it in the 2021 foreclosure
            action, its redemption amount would have been $8868.47 and that it
            would be inequitable and contrary to the requirements of § 49-30 to
            require it to pay any additional amounts to exercise its right of redemp-
            tion. After hearing argument on the defendant’s motion, the court denied
            the motion to open but reduced the redemption amount by approxi-
            mately $5000. Although the court recognized the applicability of § 47-
            258 (b) and its nine month priority period, it determined that the equities
            of the case warranted the inclusion of other expenses incurred by the
            plaintiff, but not contemplated by § 47-258 (b), in the redemption amount.
            On the defendant’s appeal to this court, held that the trial court abused
            its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to open the judgment
            of strict foreclosure for the purpose of correcting the redemption amount
0, 0                           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 1

       0 Conn. App. 1                                   ,0                            3
                   Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC
             to the extent that it was inconsistent with § 47-258 (b): in § 47-258 (b),
             the legislature established a specific priority scheme and delineated
             which liens may take priority over assessment liens and the extent to
             which assessment liens may take priority over even those priority liens,
             and the plaintiff’s lien did not have priority for any assessments other
             than those common expense assessments that would have been due in
             the nine months preceding the commencement of the 2021 foreclosure
             action, as authorized under the applicable statutory scheme, and the
             costs and reasonable attorney’s fees that the plaintiff incurred in enforc-
             ing its lien; moreover, § 49-30 did not have any bearing on the amount
             of the plaintiff’s priority debt or authorize the court to exercise its
             equitable discretion in a manner inconsistent with § 47-258 (b); accord-
             ingly, this court reversed the judgment as it pertained to the redemption
             amount and remanded the case for the purpose of correcting the redemp-
             tion amount to the extent it was inconsistent with § 47-258 (b).
               Argued November 15, 2023—officially released April 23, 2024

                                     Procedural History

         Action to foreclose any legal interest held by the
       defendant in a certain unit in a cooperative owned by
       the plaintiff, brought to the Superior Court in the judi-
       cial district of Fairfield, where the defendant was
       defaulted for failure to appear; thereafter, the court,
       Spader, J., granted the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment
       of strict foreclosure and rendered judgment thereon;
       subsequently, the court denied the defendant’s motion
       to open and vacate the judgment, and the defendant
       appealed to this court. Reversed in part; further pro-
       ceedings.
             John P. Fahey, for the appellant (defendant).
             Juda J. Epstein, for the appellee (plaintiff).
                                           Opinion

         MOLL, J. In this omitted party action commenced
       pursuant to General Statutes § 49-30,1 the defendant,
         1
           General Statutes § 49-30 provides: ‘‘When a mortgage or lien on real
       estate has been foreclosed and one or more parties owning any interest in
       or holding an encumbrance on such real estate subsequent or subordinate
       to such mortgage or lien has been omitted or has not been foreclosed of
       such interest or encumbrance because of improper service of process or
       for any other reason, all other parties foreclosed by the foreclosure judgment
       shall be bound thereby as fully as if no such omission or defect had occurred
Page 2                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

         4                          ,0                            0 Conn. App. 1
                   Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

         NewRez, LLC (NewRez), formerly known as New Penn
         Financial, LLC, doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage
         Servicing, appeals from the judgment of the trial court
         denying its motion to open and vacate the judgment
         of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff,
         Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc., a unit owners’
         association, in connection with NewRez’ mortgage on
         a unit in Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative in Stratford.
         On appeal, NewRez claims that the court incorrectly
         determined the amount that NewRez was required to
         pay to exercise its right of redemption on the basis of
         a flawed application of § 49-30 and General Statutes
         § 47-2582 and, therefore, improperly denied its motion to
         and shall not retain any equity or right to redeem such foreclosed real estate.
         Such omission or failure to properly foreclose such party or parties may
         be completely cured and cleared by deed or foreclosure or other proper
         legal proceedings to which the only necessary parties shall be the party
         acquiring such foreclosure title, or his successor in title, and the party or
         parties thus not foreclosed, or their respective successors in title.’’
            2
              General Statutes § 47-258 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) The association
         has a statutory lien on a unit for any assessment attributable to that unit
         or fines imposed against its unit owner. Unless the declaration otherwise
         provides, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, other fees, charges, late
         charges, fines and interest charged . . . and any other sums due . . . are
         enforceable in the same manner as unpaid assessments under this sec-
         tion. . . .
            ‘‘(b) Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration or bylaws to the
         contrary, a lien under this section is prior to all other liens and encumbrances
         on a unit except (1) liens and encumbrances recorded before the recordation
         of the declaration and, in a cooperative, liens and encumbrances which the
         association creates, assumes or takes subject to, (2) a first or second security
         interest on the unit recorded before the date on which the assessment
         sought to be enforced became delinquent, or, in a cooperative, a first or
         second security interest encumbering only the unit owner’s interest and
         perfected before the date on which the assessment sought to be enforced
         became delinquent, and (3) liens for real property taxes and other govern-
         mental assessments or charges against the unit or cooperative. In all actions
         brought to foreclose a lien under this section or a security interest described
         in subdivision (2) of this subsection, the lien is also prior to all security
         interests described in subdivision (2) of this subsection to the extent of (A)
         an amount equal to the common expense assessments based on the periodic
         budget adopted by the association pursuant to subsection (a) of section 47-
         257 which would have become due in the absence of acceleration during
         the nine months immediately preceding institution of an action to enforce
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 3

       0 Conn. App. 1                                 ,0                            5
                 Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

       open and vacate the foreclosure judgment. We conclude
       that the court’s calculation of NewRez’ redemption
       amount is inconsistent with § 47-258 (b) because it
       includes amounts other than those expressly permitted
       thereunder in calculating the plaintiff’s priority debt.
       Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court
       as it pertains to the redemption amount.

          The following facts and procedural history are rele-
       vant to our resolution of this appeal. In March, 2021,
       the plaintiff commenced an action seeking foreclosure
       of its statutory lien on a unit in the cooperative located
       at 26 Baird Court (unit) for outstanding common
       charges, interest, late fees, and costs owed to the plain-
       tiff pursuant to § 47-258. See Stonybrook Gardens Coop-
       erative, Inc. v. Walker, Superior Court, judicial district
       of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (2021 action).
       The named defendants were the heirs and beneficiaries
       of the unit’s owner, Pamela Walker,3 all of whom failed
       to appear and were defaulted.4 On July 28, 2021, the trial
       court, Spader, J., rendered a judgment of foreclosure
       by sale, in which, inter alia, it (1) determined that the fair
       market value of the unit was $45,000 and (2) appointed
       a foreclosure committee (committee). The plaintiff was
       either the association’s lien or a security interest described in subdivision
       (2) of this subsection, excluding any late fees, interest or fines which may
       be assessed by the association during the nine-month period, and (B) the
       association’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in enforcing its lien. A
       lien for any assessment or fine specified in subsection (a) of this section
       shall have the priority provided for in this subsection in an amount not to
       exceed the amount specified in subparagraph (A) of this subsection. This
       subsection does not affect the priority of mechanics’ or materialmen’s liens
       or the priority of liens for other assessments made by the association. . . .’’
          Section 47-258 was amended by No. 23-119, § 1, of the 2023 Public Acts,
       which made changes to the statute that are not relevant to this appeal.
       Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated, we refer to the current revision of
       the statute.
          3
            Walker was the victim of a homicide that occurred at the unit in 2020.
          4
            The complaint in the 2021 action also named a John Doe defendant, but
       the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the action against him.
Page 4                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  0, 0

         6                        ,0                          0 Conn. App. 1
                  Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

         the successful bidder at the ensuing foreclosure sale
         for $26,000, and, thereafter, the court approved the sale.
         On January 26, 2022, the court ratified the conveyance
         of the unit to the plaintiff and found that the plaintiff’s
         lien was prior in right to the liens or claims of all named
         defendants. The court found that the total amount due
         from those defendants to the plaintiff was $24,258.33.
            The plaintiff then commenced the present omitted
         party action against NewRez on May 3, 2022. In its
         complaint, the plaintiff alleged as follows. On March
         26, 2020, Walker executed a mortgage on the unit as
         security for a debt owed to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
         in the amount of $42,750, which was recorded on the
         Stratford land records. NewRez subsequently became
         the holder of the mortgage by way of an assignment
         dated December 2, 2020, and recorded in the Stratford
         land records. Although NewRez has a first security
         interest in the unit due to this prior assignment, it had
         been omitted from the 2021 action. The plaintiff, there-
         fore, brought the present omitted party action ‘‘to fore-
         close out any legal interest held by [NewRez]’’ in the
         unit. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that, ‘‘[i]f [NewRez]
         wishes to redeem the debt (common charges),’’ then
         ‘‘the plaintiff is seeking its common charges as fore-
         closed, court costs and legal fees of all current and past
         court action[s] and the costs it incurred in remediating
         the [unit].’’
            On July 7, 2022, the plaintiff filed a preliminary state-
         ment of debt, along with an affidavit of debt, stating that,
         ‘‘for the purposes of redemption,’’ the amount owed to
         the plaintiff totaled $34,410.56 based on the sum of
         ‘‘unpaid common charges and assessments’’ from July
         28, 2021, to July 31, 2022, plus the bill of costs and
         court-awarded attorney’s fees from the 2021 action.5
           5
             According to the plaintiff’s calculations, the $34,410.56 amount com-
         prised (1) $4511 in unpaid common charges and assessments as of the July
         28, 2021 judgment of foreclosure by sale, (2) $25,008.89 in unpaid common
         charges and assessments incurred between July 28, 2021, and July 31, 2022,
         (3) $1515.67 in costs, and (4) $3375 in court awarded attorney’s fees.
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  Page 5

       0 Conn. App. 1                               ,0                          7
                 Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

       The plaintiff specified that its proposed redemption
       amount was ‘‘not inclusive of fees/costs of this action
       and remediation costs.’’ On July 25, 2022, after NewRez
       had been defaulted for failure to appear, the court
       granted the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of strict
       foreclosure, determining that the fair market value of
       the unit was $40,000, setting the redemption amount at
       $34,410.56, and ordering the law days to commence on
       August 23, 2022.
           On August 16, 2022, NewRez filed an appearance and
       a motion to open and vacate the July 25, 2022 judgment
       of strict foreclosure (motion to open), to which the
       plaintiff filed an objection. In the motion to open, New-
       Rez asserted the following: (1) the plaintiff failed to
       name or serve NewRez in the 2021 action despite the
       March 26, 2020 mortgage; (2) had the plaintiff correctly
       named NewRez, the redemption amount for NewRez
       would have been $8868.67;6 and (3) as a result of the
       plaintiff’s failure to name NewRez in the 2021 action,
       ‘‘[i]t would be both inequitable and contrary to the
       requirements of . . . § 49-30 to require’’ NewRez to pay
       any additional amounts to exercise its right of redemp-
       tion. In its objection to the motion to open, the plaintiff
       argued, inter alia, that (1) the committee’s prior title
       search did not find NewRez’ assignment, (2) the costs
       and fees incurred in connection with the unit’s sale
       should be included in the redemption amount, and (3)
       the plaintiff is entitled in equity to recover costs for
       ‘‘cleaning, removing and safeguarding the unit . . . .’’
        On August 22, 2022, the court heard argument on the
       motion to open and issued an order extending the law
         6
          According to NewRez’ calculations, the $8868.67 amount comprised (1)
       $3978 in common expense assessments entitled to priority (by calculating
       nine months of common charges at a rate of $442 per month in 2021), (2)
       $3375 in court-awarded attorney’s fees, and (3) $1515.67 in costs. We would
       observe that, although the rate of common charges set by the association
       in 2020 was different from the 2021 rate, NewRez does not dispute the
       amount of common expense assessments entitled to priority.
Page 6                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                          0, 0

         8                            ,0                              0 Conn. App. 1
                    Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

         days to commence on October 18, 2022. On August 29,
         2022, the court made a preliminary finding ‘‘that the
         mortgage and assignment were fairly obvious to find
         [online]. . . . The default in the payment of common
         charges and the mortgage is unfortunately obvious to
         the court, as well, based on other pending matters in
         the courthouse and public news accounts of the occur-
         rences at the [unit] in the summer of 2020. The plaintiff
         may have legitimate related expenses and [NewRez]
         would have knowledge of the inability of the original
         defendant to pay cooperative charges while also unable
         to pay down the mortgage long before the 2021 action
         was brought by the plaintiff.’’ In addition, the court
         directed the parties to submit documentation7 for it to
         consider in making its ruling. The parties thereafter
         complied with the order and submitted the additional
         documents.
            On September 8, 2022, the court issued a memoran-
         dum of decision in which it denied the motion to open
         but, upon further review of the debt, reduced the
         amount that NewRez was required to pay to exercise
         its right to redeem to either $28,503.18 or $28,954.18.8
         The court found that NewRez was an ‘‘omitted party’’
         under § 49-30 and that, had the plaintiff named NewRez
         in the 2021 action, ‘‘it is likely that NewRez would have
         requested a law day and redeemed on its law day, or,
         in the event of a sale (which is what occurred), it clearly
             The plaintiff was ordered to file (1) a copy of the title search obtained
             7

         by the committee in connection with the 2021 action and (2) the ledger
         reflecting the balance of unpaid common charges, assessments, fees, and
         costs incurred by the plaintiff as described in the plaintiff’s affidavit of debt
         dated July 7, 2022. NewRez was ordered to file a copy of the title search
         relating to a lis pendens filed ‘‘after title vested in the [plaintiff] that purports
         to indicate that [NewRez’] title search may have missed the committee deed
         recorded [on] December 21, 2021 . . . .’’
           8
             The court stated that, ‘‘[t]o redeem this action, [NewRez] must pay
         $28,503.18 by September 30, 2022, or $28,954.18 after September 20, 2022,
         but before its law day on October 18, 2022 (adding the October, 2022 assess-
         ment) . . . .’’ (Emphasis omitted; footnote omitted.)
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    Page 7

       0 Conn. App. 1                                ,0                           9
                 Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

       would have satisfied the judgment prior to the foreclo-
       sure sale.’’ The court determined, however, that (1)
       the unpaid common expense assessments that were
       entitled to priority pursuant to § 47-258 (b) were those
       assessments incurred from March through December,
       2021, and (2) NewRez was required to pay the unpaid
       common expense assessments, as well as the plaintiff’s
       ‘‘legal fees and costs from the [2021] action and preser-
       vation fees,’’ in order to redeem.
          Although the court recognized the applicability of
       § 47-258 (b) and its nine month priority period, it deter-
       mined that the equities of the case warranted the inclu-
       sion of other expenses incurred by the plaintiff, but
       not contemplated by § 47-258 (b), in the redemption
       amount.9 As the court summarized, ‘‘the plaintiff here
       missed serving [NewRez] in [the 2021] action and has
       gone two years without payment of assessments and
       incurring legal fees and costs and preservation costs.
       [NewRez] has gone over two years without payments
       on its mortgage . . . and took no earlier steps to pro-
       tect its interests. Only the committee had a decent
       usable title search, and [the committee] failed to advise
       anybody of issues in the [2021] action. . . .
         ‘‘It would be inequitable to allow a mortgage holder
       to take no action and just cap their obligations to an
       association at [nine] months of debt when they . . .
       sat back on enforcing their rights. It is also inequitable
       to let an association continue accruing debt that was
       avoidable had it provided proper notice to the mortgage
       holder in the first place. The neighboring members of
       the association are being harmed by the nonperforming
       nature of this unit.’’
          The court concluded that ‘‘[the plaintiff] should be
       allowed to collect preservation fees and costs and its
         9
           The court characterized the case as one that ‘‘is at the crossroads of
       law and equity’’ and stated that it ‘‘weigh[ed] the equitable factors heavily
       in reaching [its] decision.’’
Page 8                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

         10                          ,0                           0 Conn. App. 1
                   Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

         legal fees and costs from enforcing its debt and the
         posttitle vesting assessments,’’ reasoning that ‘‘[m]any
         of the expenses [the plaintiff] incurred . . . are
         expenses that the mortgage holder would have incurred
         once [Walker] could no longer maintain the property’’
         and NewRez was ‘‘served . . . in May [of 2022] and
         took no action to defend itself earlier.’’ On September
         19 and 27, 2022, NewRez filed two motions to reargue
         and reconsider the denial of its motion to open, both
         of which the court denied.10 This appeal followed.
           On appeal, NewRez claims that the court improperly
         denied its motion to open on the basis of an incorrect
         application of §§ 47-258 and 49-30. NewRez argues that
         the court’s determination of the redemption amount is
         inconsistent with § 47-258 (b), which expressly limits
         the amount of the plaintiff’s debt that is entitled to
         priority over NewRez’ mortgage. In essence, NewRez
         asserts that, as the holder of a first security interest on
            10
               In both motions to reargue and reconsider, NewRez asserted that, prior
         to commencing the 2021 action, the plaintiff failed to comply with the
         notice requirements of § 47-258 (m), which provides, inter alia, that costs
         or attorney’s fees shall be excluded from the priority amount if an association
         fails to send written notice of default to the holders of all security interests
         prior to commencing an action to foreclose its lien on a unit. In denying
         the September 19, 2022 motion, the court stated: ‘‘While the court agrees
         that it is entirely likely that the plaintiff did not provide notice of default
         to [NewRez] prior to commencing the [2021] action (as it admits to not
         knowing there was a mortgage), foreclosures are equitable in nature, and
         the court also found that [NewRez] did not actively enforce its rights upon the
         borrowers’ default. The court issued a decision after careful consideration
         of the equities of all of the parties. The issue of § 47-258 (m) was not raised
         in the . . . motion [to open] by [NewRez] and is being raised for the first
         time in this motion to reconsider. Upon review of the memorandum of
         decision and the equitable factors of this case, the motion to reconsider that
         decision is denied.’’ The court summarily denied the substantively identical
         September 27, 2022 motion. NewRez has not appealed from the court’s
         denials of its motions to reargue and reconsider and will not be able to
         revisit this issue upon remand. Moreover, counsel for NewRez made clear
         during oral argument before this court that it was not seeking to avoid
         liability for the plaintiff’s fees and costs incurred in the 2021 action and the
         present action.
0, 0                     CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         Page 9

       0 Conn. App. 1                         ,0                    11
               Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

       the unit, it is required only to pay the plaintiff’s priority
       debt in order to exercise its statutory right to redeem.
       The plaintiff, while recognizing that ‘‘[t]he amount the
       court ordered [NewRez] to pay included sums that were
       greater than the nine month priority [debt],’’ asserts that
       the court was permitted to exercise its broad equitable
       powers even in contravention of the statute. We agree
       with NewRez.
         The following standard of review and legal principles
       are relevant to our resolution of NewRez’ claim. ‘‘In
       reviewing the denial of a motion to open a judgment
       of strict foreclosure, we are limited to determining
       whether the court abused its discretion in so ruling or
       based its ruling on some error of law. If neither such
       error is established, the court’s ruling must be upheld.’’
       USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Gianetti, 197 Conn.
       App. 814, 820, 232 A.3d 1275 (2020).
           We recognize the long-standing principle that a
       ‘‘[f]oreclosure is peculiarly an equitable action, and the
       court may entertain such questions as are necessary to
       be determined in order that complete justice may be
       done. . . . [B]ecause a mortgage foreclosure action is
       an equitable proceeding, the trial court may consider
       all relevant circumstances to ensure that complete jus-
       tice is done. . . . [E]quitable remedies are not bound
       by formula but are molded to the needs of justice. . . .
       The determination of what equity requires in a particu-
       lar case, the balancing of the equities, is a matter for the
       discretion of the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted; internal
       quotation marks omitted.) Milford v. Recycling, Inc.,
       213 Conn. App. 306, 310, 278 A.3d 1119, cert. denied,
       345 Conn. 906, 282 A.3d 981 (2022).
         The court’s equitable powers, however, are not unfet-
       tered. ‘‘The law governing strict foreclosure lies at the
       crossroads between the equitable remedies provided
       by the judiciary and the statutory remedies provided
Page 10                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

          12                    ,0                       0 Conn. App. 1
                 Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

          by the legislature. . . . In exercising its equitable dis-
          cretion, however, the court must comply with manda-
          tory statutory provisions that limit the remedies avail-
          able to a foreclosing mortgagee [or lien holder]. . . . It
          is our adjudicatory responsibility to find the appropriate
          accommodation between applicable judicial and statu-
          tory principles. Just as the legislature is presumed to
          enact legislation that renders the body of the law coher-
          ent and consistent, rather than contradictory and incon-
          sistent . . . [so] courts must discharge their responsi-
          bility, in case by case adjudication, to assure that the
          body of the law—both common and statutory—remains
          coherent and consistent.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote
          omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) New Mil-
          ford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251, 256–57, 708
          A.2d 1378 (1998).
             Mindful of these principles, we turn to § 47-258, titled
          ‘‘Lien for assessments and other sums due association.
          Enforcements.’’ That statute ‘‘establishes the priority
          of liens with respect to foreclosures involving condo-
          miniums [and cooperatives]. As our Supreme Court
          noted in Hudson House Condominium Assn., Inc. v.
          Brooks, 223 Conn. 610, 614, 611 A.2d 862 (1992), ‘[l]iens
          for delinquent common expense assessments on indi-
          vidual units within an association are creatures of stat-
          ute’ and the governing statute, § 47-258 (b), sets forth
          the priority of these liens with respect to other liens.
          Our Supreme Court also recognized that this legislative
          scheme departs from the common law rule of first in
          time equals first in right. Id. Section 47-258 (b) estab-
          lishes a specific priority scheme and delineates which
          liens may take priority over assessment liens and the
          extent to which assessment liens may take priority over
          even those priority liens. This court must respect the
          intricate priority scheme that the legislature has estab-
          lished.’’ Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Mura-
          nelli, 39 Conn. App. 736, 739, 667 A.2d 803 (1995), cert.
          denied, 236 Conn. 902, 670 A.2d 321 (1996).
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         Page 11

       0 Conn. App. 1                        ,0                    13
              Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

          Specifically, § 47-258 (b) provides in relevant part:
       ‘‘In all actions brought to foreclose a lien under this
       section or a security interest . . . the lien is also prior
       to all [first or second] security interests . . . to the
       extent of (A) an amount equal to the common expense
       assessments based on the periodic budget adopted by
       the association . . . which would have become due in
       the absence of acceleration during the nine months
       immediately preceding institution of an action to
       enforce either the association’s lien or a security inter-
       est . . . excluding any late fees, interest or fines which
       may be assessed by the association during the nine-
       month period, and (B) the association’s costs and rea-
       sonable attorney’s fees in enforcing its lien. A lien for
       any assessment or fine specified in subsection (a) of
       this section shall have the priority provided for in this
       subsection in an amount not to exceed the amount
       specified in subparagraph (A) of this subsection.’’

          Section 47-258 (b) thus ‘‘establishes a super priority
       lien, as against a first or second security interest, for
       those assessments that ‘accrued during the [nine]
       months immediately preceding the commencement of
       the foreclosure action . . . .’ Hudson House Condo-
       minium Assn., Inc. v. Brooks, supra, 223 Conn. [612].
       The intricacies of the scheme are evident. The statute
       specifies which liens shall have priority and makes all
       others, including, for example, judgment liens, inferior.
       This scheme establishes the order in which the lienhold-
       ers shall be paid from the available equity in the subject
       real property.’’ Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB
       v. Muranelli, supra, 39 Conn. App. 740. Moreover, costs
       and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the enforce-
       ment of the lien are included in the debt entitled to
       priority. See General Statutes § 47-258 (b); see also
       Hudson House Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Brooks,
       supra, 617 n.4 (noting that amendment to prior revision
Page 12                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

          14                    ,0                       0 Conn. App. 1
                 Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

          of § 47-258 (b) ‘‘clarified that attorney’s fees and costs
          are included in the priority debt’’).
            The plaintiff argues that the court’s decision to
          exceed the parameters of § 47-258 (b) by including sums
          beyond the plaintiff’s priority debt in the redemption
          amount was an exercise of its equitable discretion ‘‘to
          offset the benefits to both [NewRez] and [the plaintiff]
          that would have accrued on account of the failure to
          name [NewRez] in the [2021 action].’’ In particular, the
          plaintiff asserts that it spent ‘‘significant costs to
          remodel and improve the severely damaged [unit]’’ and,
          therefore, the court’s decision ‘‘prevent[ed] inequitable
          gains by either party.’’ For the reasons that follow, we
          conclude that the court improperly crafted an equitable
          remedy in a manner that contravenes the priority
          scheme established by the legislature.
            ‘‘The legislature already considered the position of
          . . . associations with respect to other lienholders,
          and, had it wanted to enhance the association’s priority
          further, it would have done so. The statute states that
          the association’s interest, except for the super priority,
          shall be subordinate to the first and second security
          interest.’’ Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v.
          Muranelli, supra, 39 Conn. App. 741.
             Further, as our Supreme Court has explained,
          ‘‘[w]hen the statute is clear . . . the appropriate rule
          is that one cannot be unjustly enriched by a statutory
          enactment. . . . While the plaintiff may disagree with
          the equities of limiting the § 47-258 (b) priority . . .
          this is a matter not for the judiciary, but rather for the
          legislature that enacted the statute.’’ (Citation omitted;
          emphasis in original.) Hudson House Condominium
          Assn., Inc. v. Brooks, supra, 223 Conn. 615–16; see id.,
          614–16 (rejecting claim that common expense assess-
          ments accrued during pendency of action were entitled
0, 0                     CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         Page 13

       0 Conn. App. 1                         ,0                    15
               Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

       to priority under General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 47-
       258 (b)).
          Simply put, the plaintiff’s lien does not have priority
       for any assessments other than those common charges
       authorized under the applicable statutory scheme and
       the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees that the plain-
       tiff incurred in enforcing its lien. Pursuant to § 47-258
       (b), the plaintiff’s debt has priority over NewRez’ mort-
       gage interest only to the extent of an amount equal to
       the common expense assessments that would have
       been due in the nine months preceding the commence-
       ment of the 2021 action, plus costs and reasonable attor-
       ney’s fees authorized under the statute, and excluding
       any late fees, interest, or fines assessed during that
       period. See, e.g., Sunrise Common Condominium
       Assn., Inc. v. Bello, Superior Court, judicial district of
       Fairfield, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (March 21, 2014)
       (57 Conn. L. Rptr. 746, 748) (‘‘[Section 47-258 (b)] is
       clear that common expenses are the association’s bud-
       geted expenses . . . . [E]xpenses entitled to [super
       priority] are not expenses related to water damage to
       a unit, which expenses are occurrence related and not
       budget expenses.’’).
          Finally, although it may be correct that, as the plaintiff
       indicates, the present omitted party action ‘‘differs from
       the usual condominium lien foreclosure,’’ we cannot
       discern § 49-30 to have any bearing on the amount of
       the plaintiff’s priority debt, or to authorize the court to
       exercise its equitable discretion in a manner inconsis-
       tent with § 47-258 (b). ‘‘[T]he . . . language [of § 49-
       30] unambiguously declares that it provides for a cure
       for the omission of an encumbrancer. ‘In the construc-
       tion of the statutes, words and phrases shall be con-
       strued according to the commonly approved usage of
       the language . . . .’ General Statutes § 1-1 (a). In com-
       mon parlance as well as case law, ‘cure’ means to
       restore to a prior state of health or soundness. . . .
Page 14                      CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

          16                      ,0                       0 Conn. App. 1
                   Stonybrook Gardens Cooperative, Inc.v. NewRez, LLC

          [T]he legislature intended [§ 49-30] to provide a means
          of restoring the title to the condition that would have
          existed had the encumbrancer not been omitted.’’ (Cita-
          tions omitted; emphasis in original.) Federal Deposit
          Ins. Corp. v. Bombero, 37 Conn. App. 764, 771, 657 A.2d
          668 (1995), appeal dismissed, 236 Conn. 744, 674 A.2d
          1324 (1996). Here, had NewRez not been improperly
          omitted from the 2021 action, it would have been
          required only to pay the amount prescribed by § 47-258
          (b) to exercise its right of redemption.
            In sum, we conclude that, pursuant to § 47-258 (b),
          the amount that NewRez was required to pay to redeem
          the unit was limited to the plaintiff’s priority debt, mean-
          ing the common expense assessments that would have
          been due in the nine months preceding the commence-
          ment of the 2021 action, plus costs and reasonable attor-
          ney’s fees as authorized by the statute. Therefore, we
          further conclude that the court abused its discretion in
          denying the motion to open the July 25, 2022 judgment
          of strict foreclosure for the purpose of correcting the
          redemption amount to the extent that it is inconsistent
          with § 47-258 (b).
            The judgment is reversed only as to the calculation
          of the redemption amount and the case is remanded
          for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
               In this opinion the other judges concurred.