214 Conn.App. 703
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- REI borrowed $247,500 secured by mortgage on 88 Dawn Drive; plaintiff obtained judgment of strict foreclosure on January 28, 2019 and initially set law day May 20, 2019.
- REI filed a motion to open on May 15, 2019; the court denied that motion on May 20, 2019 and set a new law day of June 24, 2019.
- REI filed a motion to reargue/reconsider the denial on June 10, 2019 (within the 20-day appeal period); the court denied reargument on July 3, 2019 and notice was sent July 5, 2019.
- Plaintiff recorded a certificate of foreclosure and quitclaimed the property after the June 24 law day; Traditions (appellant) later moved to open the judgment (Dec. 7, 2020), arguing title never vested because the June 24 law day fell within an extended appellate stay.
- The trial court dismissed Traditions’ motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding the law day vested title despite the reargument motion; the Appellate Court reversed, holding the timely reargument motion extended the automatic stay until notice of the reargument ruling on July 5, 2019, so the June 24 law day had no legal effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to reargue filed within the 20-day appeal period tolls/extends the automatic appellate stay so that a law day falling during that period is ineffective | The amended Practice Book rule (§63-1) no longer continues the stay pending decision on such motions; therefore the June 24 law day vested title | Filing a timely motion to reargue under Practice Book §§11-11 and 63-1 triggers the automatic stay under §61-11(a) until notice of the ruling, rendering any law day in that interval ineffective | Timely filing of the motion to reargue extended the appellate stay until notice of the ruling (July 5, 2019); June 24 law day had no legal effect and title did not vest then |
| Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide Traditions’ later motion to open because title had already become absolute | Title vested on June 24 and §49-15 bars opening after title becomes absolute, so the motion was moot and court lacked jurisdiction | Because the June 24 law day fell within the extended appellate stay, title never vested; the court retained jurisdiction to hear the motion to open | Court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction; matter remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Sullivan, 216 Conn. 341 (Conn. 1990) (timely motion to open filed during appeal period extends automatic stay until motion is decided)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Rothermel, 339 Conn. 366 (Conn. 2021) (post-vesting exceptions to §49-15 are narrow; limited equitable powers to reopen in narrow circumstances)
- Young v. Young, 249 Conn. 482 (Conn. 1999) (motion to reargue can suspend the appeal period until denial)
- Connecticut Nat'l Mortgage Co. v. Knudsen, 323 Conn. 684 (Conn. 2016) (denial of motion to open is an appealable final judgment)
- Brooklyn Savings Bank v. Frimberger, 29 Conn. App. 628 (Conn. App. 1992) (timely appeal from denial of motion to open keeps automatic stay in effect until disposition)
- Continental Capital Corp. v. Lazarte, 57 Conn. App. 271 (Conn. App. 2000) (law days are ineffective while an appeal period is pending)