131 Conn. App. 471
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- J&E Investment, LLC sues to foreclose on 349-351 Broad Street, New London.
- Velocity Commercial Capital, LLC asserts priority mortgage over J&E and moves to open the strict foreclosure judgment.
- Court stayed law days to consider pending motions, but the clerk failed to issue notice; the court later reopened the judgment
- The court determined Velocity’s mortgage had priority over J&E’s mortgage, on equitable grounds, and dissolved the foreclosure certificate.
- Plaintiff argues title had vested in J&E before opening, and that priority ruling was improper because final judgment was not yet reached; the court’s order to stay law days and subsequent opening are challenged.
- Following multiple motions, the court opened the judgment, resolved priority in Velocity’s favor, and remanded for further proceedings; appellate review on the priority ruling is limited due to lack of final judgment on foreclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to open under § 49-15 despite vesting | Title vested in plaintiff; § 49-15 barred opening | Court stayed law days; retained authority to open | Authority to open affirmed |
| Is the priority ruling a final judgment for appeal purposes | Priority decision constitutes final relief for plaintiff | Priority issue is interlocutory and not final | Interlocutory; appeal limited to final judgment; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Sullivan, 216 Conn. 341 (1990) (opening of judgments of strict foreclosure; four conditions for opening)
- New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251 (1998) (equitable purpose of § 49-15; scrivener’s errors; mortgagee equity)
- Broadnax v. New Haven, 294 Conn. 280 (2009) (interlocutory nature when priorities are unresolved)
- Capp Industries, Inc. v. Schoenberg, 104 Conn. App. 101 (2007) (finality of judgment when determining foreclosure method and debt amount)
- Moran v. Morneau, 129 Conn. App. 349 (2011) (priorities not final until final judgment or sale)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (appealability standards for interlocutory orders)