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.