Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC v. Alexandria Estates, LLC, 149 Conn. App. 160

Plaintiff Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC (trustee of the Wiyot Trust) sought strict foreclosure on an $800,000 mortgage against Alexandria Estates, LLC.
Defendant John Neubig claimed a prior interest: an agreement with Dale Construction recorded in the land records that he said secured $35,000 per lot for him and preceded the plaintiff’s mortgage.
Trial court initially ruled Neubig’s interest was prior; this court reversed and remanded for determination of priorities, directing the trial court to review specifically the deed from Neubig to Alexandria Estates to see if it made the conveyance subject to the Neubig–Dale agreement.
On remand, the only evidence offered were the two warranty deeds from Neubig to Alexandria Estates; neither deed referenced the Neubig–Dale agreement.
Trial court, following this court’s remand guidance, found the plaintiff’s mortgage was prior and entered judgment of strict foreclosure; Neubig appealed, asserting the court should have considered the recorded agreement and allowed testimony about the title search.
This appellate panel affirmed, holding the trial court properly followed the remand mandate and was limited to reviewing the deed of conveyance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by relying solely on the two warranty deeds and ignoring recorded agreements in chain of title	Plaintiff: Remand required review of the deed from Neubig to Alexandria Estates; if deed did not make conveyance subject to the Neubig–Dale agreement, plaintiff's mortgage is prior	Neubig: Title search and recorded agreement in land records put plaintiff on notice and should be considered in determining priority	Court: Trial court properly followed this court’s remand limited to the conveyance deed; judgment affirmed
Whether plaintiff’s counsel should have been allowed to testify about the title search	Plaintiff: Testimony unnecessary and potentially implicates privilege; motion to quash proper	Neubig: Counsel’s testimony would show plaintiff knew of defendant’s interest and defects in title	Court: Did not reach merits because remand scope made the issue unnecessary; record inadequate for review
Whether trial court should have rejected appellate directive and considered broader evidence	Plaintiff: Trial court bound by appellate opinion and mandate	Neubig: Appellate directive was incorrect; trial court should consider additional evidence of notice	Court: Rule of law of the case applies; trial court correctly followed appellate mandate

State v. Flanagan, 147 Conn. App. 262 (Conn. App. 2013) (trial court must follow appellate mandate on remand)
Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300 Conn. 325 (Conn. 2011) (scope of remand and obligation to comply with mandate)
Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC v. Alexandria Estates, LLC, 136 Conn. App. 511 (Conn. App. 2012) (prior appellate opinion directing remand to examine specific deed)
Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 142 Conn. App. 484 (Conn. App. 2013) (law of the case doctrine applies on retrial)
Dinan v. Marchand, 279 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2006) (need for offer of proof when excluding testimony)