The plaintiff therefore failed to satisfy its burden of proof by providing credible evidence of the fair market value of the property on the date title vested. Connecticut's deficiency judgment statute, General Statutes 49-14, is the requirement than the party seeking a deficiency judgment satisfy her burden of proof regarding the fair market value of the property as of the date title vests in her. Eichman v. J J Building Company, 216 Conn. 443, 445 (1990). In Eichman, the trial court heard expert testimony from two appraisers, one for the plaintiff and one for the defendant.
The procedure set forth in Connecticut General Statutes 49-14 is the only method of satisfying a mortgage note when the security is inadequate to make a foreclosing plaintiff whole. Eichmann v. J J Building Co., 216 Conn. 443, 582 A.2d 182, 185 (1990). The statute provides for a hearing at which the court shall consider evidence of the valuation of the mortgaged property.
We disagree with the defendant's characterization of the evidence and find the defendant's claim lacking in merit. While there is no formally established procedure to move for the dismissal of a motion for a deficiency judgment, our Supreme Court recognized in Eichman v. J J Building Co., 216 Conn. 443, 582 A.2d 182 (1990), that the trial court may dismiss such a motion if the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case. Although a deficiency proceeding is not a trial, the motion to dismiss a deficiency judgment for a failure to state a prima facie case is akin to, and has the same effect as, a Practice Book § 302 motion for a directed verdict.
The date of valuation is the date that title in the property vested in the party claiming the deficiency, in this case, July 11, 1996. See Eichman v. J J Building Co., 216 Conn. 443, 451 (1990). The party seeking a deficiency judgment has the burden of proving that the property was worth less than the amount of the debt on the date of the vesting of title and has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine the value of the property on that date.
" General Statutes § 49-14(a); see also Practice Book § 528. "`The value of the premises on the date that title becomes vested in the mortgagee determines whether the mortgagee is entitled to a deficiency judgment.'" [Eichman v. J J Building Co.], 216 Conn. 443, 449, 582 A.2d 182 (1990), quoting [Di Diego v. Zarro], 19 Conn. App. 291, 294, 562 A.2d 555 (1989). "Implicit in General Statutes § 49-14 is the requirement that the party seeking a deficiency judgment satisfy [its] burden of proof regarding the fair market value of the property as of the date title vests.
Pursuant to the Judgment for Strict Foreclosure, title to the thirty-five condominium units passed to the FDIC on May 7, 1992, thereby fixing that date as the date for the appraisals that would be used in the subsequent deficiency determination. See Eichman v. J J Bldg. Co., 216 Conn. 443, 449, 582 A.2d 182, 185 (1990). The parties consented to a full trial before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §(s) 636(c).
In a foreclosure proceeding, the value of the properties is measured as their "fair market value . . . as of the date title vests in the foreclosing plaintiff." United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Student Loan Found., 718 F. Supp. 2d 277, 289 (D. Conn. 2010) (citing Eichman v. J&J Bldg. Co., 216 Conn. 443, 445 (1990)). This case is not exactly a foreclosure proceeding, but the same method of valuation appears appropriate.
We begin our analysis by setting forth the proper standard of review. It is in the trial court's province to determine the valuation of mortgaged property, usually guided by expert witnesses, relevant circumstances bearing on value, and its own knowledge. See, e.g., Eichman v. J & J Building Co., 216 Conn. 443, 451, 582 A.2d 182 (1990). The trial court also determines the credibility and weight accorded to the witnesses, their testimony, and the evidence admitted.
Thus, any deficiency judgment sought in connection with the foreclosure arises from the contractual relationship between the parties to the promissory note. See Eichman v. J & J Building Co., 216 Conn. 443, 453, 582 A.2d 182 (1990) (“deficiency judgment hearings more closely resemble suits for collection”); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Voll, 38 Conn.App. 198, 207, 660 A.2d 358 (noting while deficiency judgments are part of foreclosure, “the deficiency judgment is the functional equivalent of a suit upon the note” [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903, 665 A.2d 901 (1995). When payment of a promissory note secured by a mortgage is further protected by a separate guarantee, in addition to the aforementioned potential remedies against the mortgagor, the mortgagee may pursue a claim against the guarantors to recover any of the unpaid debt of the mortgagor.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Newbury Commons Ltd. Partnership v. Stamford, supra, 226 Conn. 99; cf. Eichman v. J J Building Co., 216 Conn. 443, 452, 582 A.2d 182 (1990) (in deficiency judgment hearing, trier of fact "is privileged to adopt whatever testimony he reasonably believes to be credible" [internal quotation marks omitted]). This principle applies not only to the trial court's determination of the true and actual value of taxable property, but also to its determination of whether the plaintiff has satisfied the burden of establishing overvaluation.