November 2023

The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that, in a foreclosure action, a borrower defendant is entitled to discover the foreclosing mortgagee’s entire mortgage loan file.  In JP Morgan Chase Co., NA v. Lakner, 347 Conn. 476 (2023), the trial court entered a protective order barring the mortgagor from obtaining the mortgagee’s complete mortgage file on the grounds that the mortgagor’s request was overly broad and unlikely to lead to the admission of material evidence.  Subsequently at trial, the mortgagee introduced into evidence a summary of the mortgagor’s loan and a payment history, neither of which the mortgagor had seen prior to trial.  The trial court entered judgment in favor of the mortgagee.  The mortgagor appealed but the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.  The mortgagor filed a petition for certification to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court which that court granted to answer the following question: ‘[d]id the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court’s decision to grant a motion for a protective order in favor of [MTGLQ], thereby resulting in the denial of document discovery sought by the defendant related to [MTGLQ’s] mortgage file that was the subject of this foreclosure action?’’

 The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s decision to affirm the trial court judgment, holding both that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the blanket protective order and that the order harmed the mortgagor by preventing him from pursuing, developing and supporting the defenses that he raised.  As the Court writes, “[w]hen the trial court granted [the mortgagee’s] motion for a protective order, it effectively prevented the defendant from discovering evidence that may have demonstrated that he had been overcharged on his mortgage account — either through improper charges for insurance premiums or a failure to reduce the interest rate pursuant to the SCRA — or from even knowing the basis of the alleged default.”  The Supreme Court ordered the case remanded to the trial court with direction to deny the motion for protective order and to schedule a new trial.

Back to News