163 Conn.App. 635
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Mid Pac Portfolio, LLC (substituted plaintiff) prosecuted a strict foreclosure against James E. Christiansen and Cielo Christiansen after assignment from Citigroup; defaults were entered.
- Initial strict foreclosure judgment (law day April 7, 2009) was repeatedly opened and law days extended following multiple bankruptcy filings by the debtors.
- After relief from stay was granted, the court reopened and reentered judgment on May 26, 2015, setting a law day of August 25, 2015; subsequent motions to open extended the law day twice (to Sept. 29, 2015 and Dec. 1, 2015) via sua sponte orders despite denials of those motions.
- Defendant filed a third motion to open on Nov. 16, 2015; the court denied it on Nov. 30, 2015 and did not extend the Dec. 1, 2015 law day. Defendant filed this appeal on Nov. 30, 2015.
- Defendant did not redeem on Dec. 1, 2015; plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal as moot on Dec. 9, 2015, arguing title vested in plaintiff because no automatic stay attached to the third motion to open under amended Practice Book §61-11(g).
- The trial court had not consented to reopen the judgment post-vesting; no statutory exception to reopening applied and plaintiff did not agree to reopen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of defendant’s third motion to open automatically stayed the law day | No — under Practice Book §61-11(g) no automatic stay arises because defendant had already filed and been denied at least two prior motions and did not file an affidavit showing new post-ruling good cause | Yes — denial plus timely appeal creates an automatic appellate stay that prevents the law day from running | Held: No automatic stay; because the third motion lacked the §61-11(g) affidavit, the law day ran and title vested in plaintiff, rendering the appeal moot |
| Whether appellate court can grant relief after title vests | Plaintiff: Once title vests, appellate relief cannot restore mortgagor’s rights | Defendant: Appeal could reverse denial and extend or reopen law day, restoring rights | Held: Appellate courts cannot revive a mortgagor’s extinguished equity of redemption once title vests; appeal dismissed as moot |
| Whether repeated motions to open can perpetually delay vesting | Plaintiff: Practice Book was amended to prevent that perpetual delay; subsection (g) curtails repetitive stays | Defendant: Repeated motions plus appeals can delay vesting | Held: Amendment to Practice Book §61-11(g) prevents automatic stays on subsequent motions absent new, sworn good cause; perpetual delay is not permitted |
| Whether any exception allowed reopening after vesting | Plaintiff: No agreement or statutory exception applies here to reopen after vesting | Defendant: (Implicit) trial court or appellate intervention could restore rights | Held: No exception applied; plaintiff did not agree to reopen and statutory reopening after vesting was inapplicable; title remained vested |
Key Cases Cited
- RAL Management, Inc. v. Valley View Associates, 278 Conn. 672 (explains mootness and appellate subject-matter jurisdiction)
- First Connecticut Capital, LLC v. Homes of Westport, LLC, 112 Conn. App. 750 (discusses prior practice allowing sequential motions to open to perpetually stay law days)
- Barclays Bank of New York v. Ivler, 20 Conn. App. 163 (holds appeal is moot once law days run and title vests)
- Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB v. Charles, 95 Conn. App. 315 (dismissal where relief sought—restoring property interest—cannot be granted after vesting)
- Brooklyn Savings Bank v. Frimberger, 29 Conn. App. 628 (addresses automatic twenty-day stay arising from denials of motions to open)