JP Morgan Chase Bank v. GIANOPOULOS
131 Conn. App. 15
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase filed a December 2007 foreclosure action against Sophie Gianopoulos (defendant) and Dean A. Gianopoulos (named defendant) on a Stamford residence mortgage.
- Stated appearances: Ratner appeared for the defendant (and Dean A. Gianopoulos) beginning January 8, 2008; foreclosure judgment by sale entered February 4, 2008 with sale set for August 9, 2008.
- Defendant's bankruptcy petitions in 2008 and 2009 stayed foreclosure proceedings; court granted relief from stay and later opened the judgment to reset sale dates.
- Foreclosure converted to strict foreclosure with a law day set for February 23, 2010; bankruptcy stays delayed proceedings repeatedly; August 5, 2010 bankruptcy dismissal occurred.
- On August 16, 2010, at a hearing on a motion to open the judgment for a new law day, the court updated debt and property value and set new law days starting September 21, 2010.
- Defendant appealed on September 7, 2010; appellate stay under Practice Book § 61-11(a) was triggered; plaintiff moved to dismiss nunc pro tunc, which was denied without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse discretion by not inquiring Ratner's representation of both parties? | Appeal was dilatory; Ratner's representation did not impair rights. | Court should confirm Ratner represented both defendant and Dean Gianopoulos; lack of inquiry could prejudice defendant. | No abuse; transcript shows canvassing and no basis for error. |
| Should the appeal be dismissed nunc pro tunc to terminate the appellate stay? | Nunc pro tunc dismissal necessary to prevent further delay. | Equitable relief not warranted; perpetual stay is inappropriate otherwise. | Appeal dismissal denied nunc pro tunc; extraordinary relief declined. |
| Whether the appellate court should remand to set new law days after dismissal of the appeal. | To avoid injustice by delays, set new law days and terminate stay. | Not specified; focus on proper representation and record. | Appeal dismissed; remanded for setting new law days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenfed Mortgage Corp. v. Crowley, 61 Conn.App. 84, 763 A.2d 19 (2000) (appeal filed for delay; appellate review of dilatory motives)
- Wilton v. McGovern, 33 Conn.App. 517, 636 A.2d 870 (1994) (dilatory purpose standard; timing of appeals)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Zuckerman, 31 Conn.App. 440, 624 A.2d 1163 (1993) (practice of remanding for new law days after dismissal of appeal)
- Dreambuilders Construction, Inc. v. Diamond, 121 Conn.App. 554, 997 A.2d 553 (2010) (affirming judgment and remanding for setting new law day)
- Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn.App. 570, 989 A.2d 606 (2010) (same remand for setting new law day upon foreclosure judgment)
- Webster Trust v. Mardie Lane Homes, LLC, 93 Conn.App. 401, 891 A.2d 5 (2006) (trial court discretion in equitable foreclosure matters)
- Ireland v. Connecticut Co., 112 Conn. 452, 152 A. 614 (1930) (nunc pro tunc relief rooted in justice and preventing prejudice)