208 Conn.App. 719
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Riverview Realty Associates, LLC (Riverview) executed a $640,000 note and mortgage; Amy Mase acquired the note and sued to foreclose after alleged defaults and unpaid taxes.
- The court appointed a receiver and entered default against Riverview for failing to comply with receiver payment orders; Thames Restaurant Group (tenant) filed bankruptcy during the proceedings.
- A bench trial was held on January 9, 2019; the court orally announced a judgment of strict foreclosure and set the law day for January 30, 2019, but did not announce the amount of the debt at that time.
- Riverview filed a timely appeal on January 28, 2019 (before the law day expired and before any finding of the debt amount was placed on the record/filed).
- On February 1, 2019 the trial court filed a written order dated January 9, 2019 (a nunc pro tunc entry) stating the debt amount ($1,159,902.32) and reiterating the law day; Riverview did not amend its appeal to challenge that filing.
- The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of an appealable final judgment because the required finding of the debt amount occurred only after the appeal was taken; a nunc pro tunc filing cannot cure a jurisdictional defect present when the appeal was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality / Jurisdiction: Was there an appealable final judgment when Riverview appealed? | Mase: judgment was final; law day and oral ruling established finality; dismissal appropriate. | Riverview: court’s oral ruling created an appealable judgment; later filing was a backdate and should not create a new appeal deadline; appealing earlier avoided loss of rights. | Appeal dismissed — no final judgment existed when appeal filed because amount of debt (essential element) was only found after appeal; nunc pro tunc cannot cure that jurisdictional defect. |
| Notice of default / motion to dismiss (merits) | Mase: notice complied with loan documents; foreclosure proper. | Riverview: notice defective because it overstated amount to cure; jurisdiction lacking. | Not reached on merits due to dismissal for lack of final judgment. |
| Alleged defects in strict foreclosure judgment (e.g., failure to find fair market value and debt amount) | Mase: judgment proper once debt found and law day set. | Riverview: judgment was defective and incomplete without debt amount and value determinations. | Not reached on merits; court emphasized debt amount is an essential component of a final foreclosure judgment. |
| Appointment of receiver | Mase: receiver appointment was proper under the mortgage and court orders. | Riverview: appointment was improper for several reasons. | Not reached on merits because appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Gonzalez, 40 Conn. App. 33 (Conn. App. 1995) (appellate court may raise lack of final judgment sua sponte)
- Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 178 Conn. App. 82 (Conn. App. 2017) (foreclosure judgment final when court determines liability, debt amount, and sets law days)
- Danzig v. PDPA, Inc., 125 Conn. App. 254 (Conn. App. 2010) (amount of debt is required for an appealable foreclosure judgment)
- Capp Industries, Inc. v. Schoenberg, 104 Conn. App. 101 (Conn. App. 2007) (same principle regarding essential foreclosure components)
- Morici v. Jarvie, 137 Conn. 97 (Conn. 1950) (historical precedent that amount must be determined for foreclosure finality)
- Annecharico v. Patterson, 38 Conn. App. 338 (Conn. App. 1995) (jurisdictional inquiry focuses on whether final judgment existed at time appeal was taken)
- Quinn v. Standard-Knapp, Inc., 40 Conn. App. 446 (Conn. App. 1996) (dismissal appropriate where no appealable final judgment exists)