The Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld a lower court's decision to grant a foreclosure by sale in the case of U.S. Bank National Association v. Garland Jackson. This ruling affects homeowners facing foreclosure and clarifies the requirements for mortgage assistance notices under Connecticut law.
The court's decision, officially released on June 2, 2026, comes after defendant Garland Jackson appealed the trial court's ruling. Jackson claimed that U.S. Bank failed to provide him with an Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP) notice, which he argued was necessary before the foreclosure could proceed. The court found that U.S. Bank had met the legal requirements, allowing the foreclosure to move forward.
The case began when U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure action against Jackson on October 19, 2022. Jackson had defaulted on a mortgage secured by his property in Woodbridge, Connecticut. The mortgage was originally taken out in 2006 and had undergone modifications over the years. Following Jackson's default, U.S. Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings, claiming it was entitled to the debt secured by the mortgage.
Jackson's defense centered on his assertion that U.S. Bank did not provide him with the required EMAP notice, which is intended to assist homeowners in avoiding foreclosure. He argued that without this notice, the court should not have allowed the foreclosure to proceed. The trial court ruled in favor of U.S. Bank, stating that the plaintiff had complied with the notice requirements set forth in Connecticut General Statutes.
The court ruled that U.S. Bank had indeed sent the EMAP notice to Jackson, fulfilling the statutory requirements. The ruling emphasized that the relevant law only required proof that the notice was mailed, not that it was delivered. Judge Moll, along with Judges Cradle and Westbrook, affirmed this interpretation of the law.
The court stated, "the plaintiff provided an EMAP notice to the defendant in accordance with § 8-265dd, as notice is given for purposes of § 8-265dd (b) when the notice provisions of § 8-265ee are met."
Furthermore, the court found that U.S. Bank had established its ownership of the mortgage note and that Jackson had not presented sufficient evidence to counter this claim. The ruling clarified that once the plaintiff demonstrated ownership of the note, the burden shifted to the defendant to provide evidence supporting any claims to the contrary.
In its decision, the court referenced previous cases that supported its interpretation of the EMAP notice requirements, stating, "the relevant question for challenges to an EMAP notice is not whether a defendant actually receives the EMAP notice, but rather whether a plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence that the EMAP notice was sent." This precedent reinforces the notion that the mailing of the notice suffices under the law.
The implications of this ruling are significant for homeowners facing foreclosure in Connecticut. It reinforces the requirement for lenders to send EMAP notices but clarifies that actual delivery of the notice is not necessary for a foreclosure to proceed. This ruling may impact future foreclosure cases, as it sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of notice requirements under Connecticut law.
Moving forward, this ruling may not be the end of the line for Jackson. He could potentially appeal the decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court, although details regarding any such plans were not available in the court filing. As it stands, the case has been remanded for further proceedings according to law, indicating that while the foreclosure is upheld, there may still be additional legal steps to follow.