182 Conn.App. 844
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Richard Farina defaulted on a mortgage for 100 Town Line Road; BAC Home Loans (later Bank of America, then Federal National Mortgage Association) pursued a strict foreclosure.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on liability and later a judgment of strict foreclosure; law days were set and repeatedly reset between 2013–2016 amid motions to open and reargue by Farina.
- Practice Book § 61-11 was amended in 2013 to limit automatic appellate stays after repeated motions to open; the appellate court previously affirmed foreclosure and later dismissed Farina’s final appeal as moot under § 61-11(g).
- The appellate court’s dismissal (July 20, 2016) was treated as final, and a certificate of foreclosure was recorded; plaintiff sent notices to vacate and then served a notice to quit before commencing summary process for possession.
- Farina moved to dismiss the summary process action for lack of plaintiff standing, arguing title never vested because an appellate stay prevented law days from running; trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
- On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed, holding Farina’s challenge was a collateral attack on the prior final foreclosure judgment (which held title vested in the plaintiff on April 25, 2016) and therefore the plaintiff had standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff had standing to bring summary process (i.e., whether title vested) | Title vested when law days ran on April 25, 2016; no automatic stay under Practice Book § 61-11(g) because prior motions to open prevented a stay | An automatic appellate stay existed, so law days passed without effect and title never vested in plaintiff | Plaintiff has standing; dismissal was improper — defendant’s claim is a collateral attack on a final foreclosure judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186 (discusses standard of review on motion to dismiss)
- Sousa v. Sousa, 322 Conn. 757 (explains disfavor of collateral attacks on final judgments)
- In re Shamika F., 256 Conn. 383 (collateral attack cannot substitute for direct appeal)
- Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. v. Christiansen, 163 Conn. App. 635 (discusses Practice Book § 61-11 amendments and pre-amendment stay issues)
- Ruiz v. Victory Properties, LLC, 180 Conn. App. 818 (emphasizes the importance of finality of judgments)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Farina, 154 Conn. App. 265 (prior appellate decision affirming foreclosure)