Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 49 — MORTGAGES AND LIENS · Chapter 846 — Mortgages
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-28 (2026)

When proceeds of sale will not pay in full

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If the proceeds of the sale are not sufficient to pay in full the amount secured by any mortgage or lien thereby foreclosed, the deficiency shall be determined, and thereupon judgment may be rendered in the cause for the deficiency against any party liable to pay the same who is a party to the cause and has been served with process or has appeared therein, and all persons liable to pay the debt secured by the mortgage or lien may be made parties; but all other proceedings for the collection of the debt shall be stayed during the pendency of the foreclosure suit, and, if a deficiency judgment is finally rendered therein, the other proceedings shall forthwith abate. Other than in the case of a foreclosure by market sale, if the property has sold for less than the appraisal provided for in section 49-25, no judgment shall be rendered in the suit or in any other for the unpaid portion of the debt or debts of the party or parties upon whose motion the sale was ordered, nor shall the same be collected by any other means than from the proceeds of the sale until one-half of the difference between the appraised value and the selling price has been credited upon the debt or debts as of the date of sale; and, when there are two or more debts to which it is to be applied, it shall be apportioned between them.

(1949 Rev., S. 7209; P.A. 79-602, S. 84; P.A. 14-84, S. 11; 14-217, S. 207.)

History: P.A. 79-602 substituted “the” for “such” where appearing; P.A. 14-84 added provision excluding foreclosure by market sale from prohibition on rendering judgment for unpaid portion of debt of the party upon whose motion sale was ordered; P.A. 14-217 changed effective date of P.A. 14-84, S. 11, from October 1, 2014, to January 1, 2015, effective June 13, 2014.

Provision for crediting one-half difference between appraisal and sale price not applicable against subsequent encumbrancer. 89 C. 101. Liability of endorsers for balance of deficiency judgment in separate action. 100 C. 711. Guarantor of note allowed same statutory credit as mortgagor. 113 C. 241. Cited. 120 C. 671; 220 C. 152; Id., 643; 222 C. 784; 227 C. 270; 235 C. 741; 241 C. 269.

Cited. 23 CA 266; 28 CA 809; 31 CA 1; Id., 621; 36 CA 313; 38 CA 240.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2021 · leading case: New England Sav. Bank v. Lopez, 630 A.2d 1010 (Conn. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New England Sav. Bank v. Lopez, 630 A.2d 1010 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 30× “The principal issue of this appeal is whether General Statutes § 49-28, 2 which establishes the procedures governing deficiency judgments following foreclosures by sale, is unconstitutional under the due process clause of the United States constitution because it does not…”
New Milford Sav. Bank v. Roina, 659 A.2d 1226 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 6× “They also claim that General Statutes § 49-28, 1 pursuant to which the trial court rendered the deficiency judgment, violates the due process clause of the federal and state constitutions.”
Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesinger, 595 A.2d 872 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 6× “erbury Industrial Commons, the property that secured the notes (the property); (2) admitted into evidence expert testimony (a) about environmental issues offered by an attorney *154 from the law firm representing the plaintiff, and (b) concerning the “liquidation value” of the…”
BayBank Connecticut, N.A. v. Thumlert, 610 A.2d 658 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 9× “While an evidentiary hearing is required to determine the value of the mort *789 gaged property and thus the amount of any deficiency following a strict foreclosure, such a valuation would be superfluous following a foreclosure by sale.”
Fairfield Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp. v. Kosa, 600 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 49-28 explicitly provides for a deficiency judgment in a foreclosure by sale when “the proceeds of a sale are not sufficient to pay in full the amount secured by any mortgage or lien thereby foreclosed .”
People's Bank v. Bilmor Bldg. Corp., 614 A.2d 456 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 4× “Similarly, the defendants assert that “[a] clear reading of [General Statutes § 49-28 7 ] suggests that the commencement of the foreclosure action acts to stay any other independent actions on the debt, such as a separate action on the note only.”
Cent. Bank for Sav. v. Heggelund, 579 A.2d 598 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990). · cites it 7× “The court stated two grounds for its refusal to grant a deficiency judgment: (1) that no deficiency existed because, pursuant to General Statutes § 49-28, Heggelund was entitled to a credit on his debt equal to one half of the estimated property value unrealized in the sale, and…”
Bank of Stamford v. Alaimo, 622 A.2d 1057 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 4× “2d 658 (1992) (the defense of laches as to the issue of timeliness in filing the motion for deficiency in a foreclosure by sale proceeding under General Statutes § 49-28); 5 Society for Savings v.”
Ne. Sav. v. Hintlian, 696 A.2d 315 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 3× “270 , in which we concluded that although mortgagors generally have “a protected property interest in the proper measurement of any deficiency judgment that may be rendered against them” under General Statutes § 49-28; id., 276; they have no substantive due process right to have…”
Dime Sav. Bank of New York v. Grisel, 650 A.2d 1246 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 4× “, 693; unless an appraisal is conducted pursuant to § 49-25, the criteria for determining when *320 a deficiency judgment may be obtained, in accordance with General Statutes § 49-28, 4 cannot be satisfied.”
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Assn. v. Essaghof, 336 Conn. 633 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 2× “3 General Statutes § 49-28 provides the exception to § 49-1 for a deficiency judgment following a foreclosure by sale.”
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Degennaro, 89 A.3d 969 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “If a foreclosure by sale, and the sales proceeds would not fully compensate the foreclosing creditor in full, “the deficiency shall be determined” pursuant to General Statutes § 49-28. Under that statute, if the plaintiff were the party who moved for foreclosure by sale, “no…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.