A Connecticut homeowner argued her lender abandoned its mortgage claim - but the court wasn't convinced. Here's why the foreclosure is moving forward
A Connecticut homeowner has lost her appeal to stop a foreclosure sale, after the state Appellate Court ruled that her lender had not abandoned its claim despite years of limited action.
In a decision released on April 22, 2025, the court upheld a trial court’s judgment ordering the foreclosure by sale of property owned by Cathleen Roberts-Joachim. The case centered around a second mortgage she obtained in 2006 through a home equity line of credit with National City Bank, later acquired by PNC Bank.
After facing financial hardship, Roberts-Joachim defaulted on her payments. In 2013, Wells Fargo Bank, the first mortgage holder, began foreclosure proceedings. Although PNC was named as a defendant in that earlier action, it did not participate. The court initially entered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of Wells Fargo, finding the debt exceeded the property's market value. However, Wells Fargo later withdrew the foreclosure after Roberts-Joachim secured a loan modification.
Meanwhile, the second mortgage fell further into default. Aspen Properties Group, LLC - eventually succeeded by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as trustee - initiated its own foreclosure action in December 2020, seeking to recover more than $256,000 in debt.
Roberts-Joachim attempted to argue that PNC had abandoned the mortgage because it had not actively pursued its rights for several years. She pointed to PNC’s failure to engage in the earlier foreclosure action, sporadic demand letters, and a breakdown in loan modification discussions. However, the trial court found, and the Appellate Court agreed, that PNC’s actions did not amount to abandonment.
The courts noted that PNC’s decision not to participate in the 2013 foreclosure was reasonable, given that there was no equity available at the time for a junior lienholder. They also found that sporadic communications were consistent with the loan being “charged off” for accounting purposes, not evidence of giving up on the mortgage. Further, the court highlighted that the defendant’s failure to provide necessary financial documents had stalled any potential loan workouts.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the foreclosure by sale. The debt owed was determined to be $256,166.87, with additional awards for attorney’s fees, an appraisal, and a title search. The fair market value of the property was set at $628,000. The matter was remanded solely for the purpose of setting a new sale date.
The case did not involve any discussion of insurance policy terms or clauses. It focused entirely on foreclosure law and the evidentiary standard required to prove a mortgagee’s abandonment of its rights.
For mortgage brokers and finance professionals, the case is a valuable reminder: inactivity alone does not mean a lender gives up its claim. Courts require clear evidence of an intent to abandon, and practical business decisions - such as opting out of earlier foreclosure actions - are not enough to erase a mortgage lien. Understanding how courts view abandonment defenses can make a critical difference when advising clients facing foreclosure risks.
