A homeowner avoided foreclosure through three lawsuits - but a fourth attempt by Wells Fargo stuck
Wells Fargo has successfully closed the book on a foreclosure case that’s been years in the making. In a decision officially released on May 6, 2025, the Connecticut Appellate Court upheld a judgment of strict foreclosure against borrower Paul C. Bissonnette, marking the fourth time the bank has pursued legal action over the same mortgage.
The story began in 2005, when Bissonnette took out a $229,500 home loan from Opteum Financial Services. That mortgage was later transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., acting as trustee for a mortgage-backed securities trust. Trouble started not long after: the borrower fell behind on payments, and by 2007, the first foreclosure was underway.
Over the years, Bissonnette entered into multiple loan modification agreements - one in 2009, another in 2010, and a proposed third in 2012. But by December 2010, he had stopped making payments entirely. While earlier foreclosure actions were dismissed or withdrawn - one even in the borrower’s favor - Wells Fargo tried again in 2019, basing its case on the original mortgage and the 2010 modification.
At trial, Bissonnette argued that the 2010 loan modification wasn’t valid because it wasn’t signed by Wells Fargo’s agent, as required under the original loan terms. He also claimed that the third foreclosure case, which he had won in 2018, should have blocked the current one.
The courts disagreed on both points.
Connecticut’s Appellate Court concluded that even if the 2010 modification wasn’t technically enforceable, it didn’t matter. The borrower was still in default on the original mortgage, which required regular payments through 2035. Since Bissonnette hadn’t made a single payment since November 2010, the court said that was enough to justify foreclosure.
The court also ruled that the previous case didn’t prevent Wells Fargo from pursuing a new one. The earlier foreclosure had been based on a different default tied to the disputed 2012 modification. The current case was based on earlier agreements and a new notice of default. In short, the court said the two cases were legally distinct.
At the time of the latest ruling, the unpaid loan balance had grown to $581,843.57, while the property was valued at $288,000 - prompting the trial court to enter a judgment of strict foreclosure. The Appellate Court agreed with that outcome and sent the case back solely to set new law days.
While the case involves some legal complexity, the message for mortgage professionals is straightforward. Courts may enforce a mortgage even in long-running disputes - especially when there’s clear evidence of ongoing nonpayment. Disagreements over loan modifications, like unsigned documents or prior court decisions, don’t necessarily block a lender from moving forward if the borrower remains in default.
For brokers and servicers, Wells Fargo v. Bissonnette is a sharp reminder that documentation and consistent follow-through matter. Even after years of litigation and setbacks, the bank ultimately prevailed - based not on technicalities, but on the simple fact that the loan hadn’t been paid in over a decade.
