Webster Bank v. Zak
In Webster Bank v. Zak, 71 Conn. App. 550, 802 A.2d 916, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 938, 808 A.2d 1135 (2002), the plaintiff mortgagee filed an amended complaint in response to the court's granting of a motion by the assignee of the equity of redemption to intervene as a defendant after the court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale. Id., 553.
The court had ordered the filing of the amended complaint; id., 559; the sole purpose of which was to add an allegation regarding the conveyance of the equity to the intervening assignee. Id.
The assignee claimed that the filing of the amended complaint opened and vacated the entire judgment. The court disagreed and therefore determined that the assignee was bound by the findings underlying the previous judgment of foreclosure by sale. Id., 556.
On appeal, the Court concluded that the amended complaint was "compulsory in nature and not voluntary." Id., 557. That conclusion was based both on the fact that the court had ordered the filing of the complaint; id., 559; and on the fact that "but for the assignee's motion to be cited in, the plaintiff never would have had to file the second amended complaint." Id., 557. I
n addition, the Court stated that the amended complaint "conformed to the limited purpose of the court order and subsequent motion for leave to file the amended complaint because the only addition to the complaint was the naming of the assignee as a party defendant." Id., 560.
For those reasons, the Court held that the court had not abused its discretion in not opening the pleadings as to all issues.