128 Conn. App. 811
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Kenneth Bove filed a partition action against Howard W. Bove and Douglas N. Bove for two parcels, seeking partition or sale.
- The trial court ordered partition by sale; on appeal, Bove I reversed and remanded to open judgment.
- Bove II affirmed the sale order and remanded to set a new sale date; subsequent proceedings followed with a committee of sale.
- The committee sought approval and the court allowed a March 29, 2008 sale of the Putnam property, triggering a new appeal by Howard Bove.
- A March 29, 2008 committee sale occurred during an automatic appellate stay, but the court never approved the committee sale.
- A new sale date was later set for February 27, 2010; the March 29, 2008 sale was void in light of the new date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 29, 2008 committee sale violated the appellate stay | Bove argues sale violated stay; seeks not to have sale valid. | Bove contends sale occurred during stay and hence has no effect. | Issue moot; sale void due to new sale date and lack of court approval. |
| Whether the March 29, 2008 sale can be approved after mootness | Plaintiff seeks approval of committee sale. | Defendant argues sale should be approved despite mootness. | Not reached; moot because new sale date rendered the prior sale without effect. |
| Whether the deposit on the March 29, 2008 sale should be returned | Deposit may be recoverable; issue raised at argument. | Deposit handling disputed; dependent on sale approval. | Not decided; issue left for trial upon proper motion. |
| Whether sanctions for frivolous appeals are warranted | Multiple appeals were abusive and hindered proceedings. | Arguments were not entirely frivolous. | Court declined to sanction at this time; cautioned that stays can be derailed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith-Lawler v. Lawler, 97 Conn.App. 376 (2006) (mootness governs appellate jurisdiction; threshold to relief)
- RAL Management, Inc. v. Valley View Associates, 278 Conn. 672 (2006) (mootness and appellate stay implications)
- Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 296 (1980) (sale conducted under stay has no force; stay governs proceedings)
- Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Tucker, 13 Conn.App. 239 (1988) (judicial sale becomes complete upon court confirmation)
- First Connecticut Capital, LLC v. Homes of Westport LLC, 112 Conn.App. 750 (2009) (sanctions and appellate conduct considerations)