227 Conn.App. 786
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- LendingHome Funding Corporation (plaintiff) sought foreclosure by strict foreclosure on a property owned by REI Holdings, LLC; Homeowners Finance Co. (defendant) was a junior lienholder.
- Trial court granted strict foreclosure judgment; law days were set, and plaintiff recorded title after no redemption occurred.
- Before judgment notice was issued, defendant filed a motion for judgment of foreclosure by sale, but the court never ruled on it.
- Over two years later, defendant reclaimed its motion and also filed a motion to open the strict foreclosure judgment, claiming entitlement to relief.
- The trial court denied the motion to open and for reconsideration; defendant appealed, arguing procedural and equitable grounds for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute title vested in plaintiff precluding reopening under § 49-15 | Title vested after law days passed; no stay was in effect; relief barred | Appellate stay was effective because of pending motion, law days ineffective, so title didn’t vest | Title vested in plaintiff; no stay was in effect; § 49-15 relief barred |
| Did the defendant's motion for judgment of foreclosure by sale extend appellate stay? | No – motion didn’t meet requirements to extend stay | Filing the motion extended automatic appellate stay, law days were ineffective | The motion did not meet requirements; appellate stay had expired before law days |
| Did procedural violation (late notice) justify court's exercise of continuing equitable jurisdiction? | No rare or exceptional circumstances; defendant received notice in time to redeem | Plaintiff’s untimely notice violated standing orders, justifying post-vesting equitable relief | No rare or exceptional circumstances; enforcing judgment not unconscionable; equitable relief denied |
| Should the trial court have granted reconsideration for failure to apply proper legal principles? | N/A | Court overlooked key legal principles supporting motion to open | Denial appropriate given lack of viable grounds for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Booker, 220 Conn. App. 783 (standards for granting or denying motion to open in foreclosure actions, abuse of discretion review)
- LendingHome Funding Corp. v. REI Holdings, LLC, 214 Conn. App. 703 (appellate stay’s effect on law days and vesting of title in strict foreclosure)
- Wachovia Mortgage, FSB v. Toczek, 189 Conn. App. 812 (law days have no legal effect while appellate stay is in place)
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Rothermel, 339 Conn. 366 (limited equitable jurisdiction post-vesting in rare, exceptional circumstances)
- New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251 (continuing jurisdiction for post-vesting motions based on mistake or inadvertence)