Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)

Citation: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Parent Document: Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (2021)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244827/scholz-v-epstein/ ↗

Full Text

2,326 chars

shal’s return of service did not reflect that any service
          was made on the plaintiff, that the return of service did
          not describe any effort made by the marshal to locate
          the plaintiff, the possible locations where the plaintiff
          could have been found, and that the plaintiff resided,
          and could have been properly served, at 405 Helen
          Street in Bridgeport. The trial court subsequently
          ordered notice by publication.
             Approximately one month later, the defendant filed
          a motion to default the plaintiff for failure to appear,
          which was granted. As a result, the plaintiff alleges that
          the defendant perpetrated ‘‘a fraud [on] the court’’ by
          ‘‘knowingly making materially false representations to
          the court with the intent to induce and cause the court
          to rely on those statements to order notice by publica-
          tion and, ultimately, to default [the plaintiff] for failure
          to appear and to [render] a judgment of strict fore-
          closure.’’
             The defendant then moved for a judgment of strict
          foreclosure. According to the complaint, the defendant
          sought a judgment of strict foreclosure, rather than a
          foreclosure by sale, by misleading the court as to the
          plaintiff’s equity in the Stillman property based on a
          flawed appraisal report, which stated that the plaintiff’s
          equity was tens of thousands of dollars less than it truly
          was. The court granted the motion for a judgment of
          strict foreclosure.
             The plaintiff alleged that, ‘‘[b]y wrongfully misleading
          the court into [rendering] a judgment of strict foreclo-
          sure, rather than a judgment of foreclosure by sale,
          [the defendant] purposefully evaded the requirement
          of posting a sign on the property within a few feet of
          the front door of [the plaintiff’s] residence at 405 Helen
          Street . . . announcing a scheduled foreclosure auc-
          tion sale, and thereby purposefully deprived [the plain-
          tiff] of notice that a foreclosure of the property was
January 25, 2022         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 37

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text