Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. v. Gregory W. Hutchins (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT (NO. 152 )

On June 24, 2015, the self-represented defendant filed a motion to open a judgment of strict foreclosure entered by this court on April 1, 2013.   Pursuant to the judgment of strict foreclosure, title vested on the plaintiff on May 17, 2013.   This motion is filed more than two years after the vesting of title.

The defendant articulates many reasons why he believes that the prior judgment of the court is void.   He claims that it was procured by fraud and that, therefore, the court was without and is without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this foreclosure action.   This motion is supported by the affidavit by the defendant, Gregory W. Hutchins, but the affidavit is replete with conclusory allegations.

The plaintiff opposes this motion for summary judgment.   The basis for the opposition is that the defendant has not exercised any remedies that he might have had in a timely fashion.   Our legislature has set out in a specific statute the manner and time within which a court may open a judgment of strict foreclosure.   See C.G.S. 49–15.   The defendant's motion does not fall within any of the exceptions created by this statute.   In the absence of a permitted exception, this statute deprives the court of the power to open a judgment of strict foreclosure after title has become absolute in any encumbrancer.

Pursuant to the terms of this statute, this court has no jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case to consider the defendant's motion.   The motion is dismissed.

Cosgrove, J.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.