He promised the money was coming. The court wanted to see receipts
A Connecticut appeals court upheld a foreclosure sale after an heir claimed he could pay the debt but brought zero proof.
The case, decided September 29, 2026, involved a $210,000 reverse mortgage on a Hartford property. The borrowers - a married couple - signed a promissory note in 2005 with Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation, a subsidiary of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. The note and mortgage were later assigned to Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee for Mortgage Assets Management Series I Trust.
Both borrowers died - the husband in 2016, the wife in 2018 - and the loan defaulted. BNY Mellon commenced foreclosure in May 2019 against the couple's children as heirs. One daughter entered the case early. A son secured mediation, but that ended in May 2023 with the matter sent back to the foreclosure docket.
By late 2024, the lender moved for default against another son who never filed an appearance in five years. The court found the debt at $210,217.79 and the property value at $255,000, and ordered a foreclosure sale for March 8, 2025.
Eight days before the sale, that son surfaced. He filed a motion to reopen, claiming he had recently returned to Connecticut after 31 years overseas and, as founder of an Asia-Pacific bio-energy business, expected income within 90 days that would cover the debt. He attached nothing.
At a March 17, 2025 hearing, he repeated the claim but offered no evidence. The court pressed him: Did he know about the foreclosure? The six-year timeline? "Yes. Yes, Your Honor." The judge denied the motion, stating that being out of the country "is not an excuse for not participating, either by yourself or having a lawyer look out for your interests here in this country."
His sister appealed on his behalf. The Appellate Court rejected every argument. She invoked General Statutes section 49-15, but the panel noted that statute applies only to strict foreclosure, not foreclosure by sale. She argued the court should have gathered evidence on her brother's behalf - the panel disagreed, noting the burden rests on the party seeking to reopen. Her due process claim failed because the trial court held a hearing and gave him full chance to present evidence. He brought none.
For servicers managing reverse mortgage portfolios, the case shows what happens when heirs wait years and try to reopen a foreclosure on promises alone. Courts want documents, not declarations.
