Moran v. Morneau
129 Conn. App. 349
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Moran sued Morneau to foreclose a judgment lien on the Portland property; Moran had recorded a July 17, 2003 notice re: constructive trust and a May 28, 2004 attachment for $54,000.
- Moran obtained a judgment against Morneau for $63,061 plus interest and recorded a judgment lien on February 15, 2006.
- Chase Home Finance, LLC held a first mortgage of $185,000 (recorded August 22, 2003) and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. held a second mortgage of $50,000 (recorded February 10, 2005).
- Moran contended her attachment and judgment lien related back to the July 2003 notice, giving her priority over Chase and JPMorgan.
- On September 14, 2009, the court foreclosed by sale and set a sale date; Chase sought to determine priorities, and the court adopted Chase’s proposed orders, placing Chase first, Moran second, and JPMorgan third.
- Before sale, Moran challenged the court’s priority order as an appealable final judgment, but the court and the appellate court concluded it was not final and interlocutory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the priority-order holding is an appealable final judgment. | Moran argues the order conclusively determines rights, causing irreparable loss of priority. | Chase argues the order is interlocutory and not a final judgment suitable for appeal. | Not appealable; the order is interlocutory and not a final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Danzig v. PDPA, Inc., 125 Conn.App. 254 (2010) (foreclosure by sale; determines debt and method of foreclosure as final judgment when applicable)
- National City Mortgage Co. v. Stoecker, 92 Conn.App. 787 (2006) (finality of sale approval; role in determining proceeds in supplemental judgment)
- Willow Funding Co., L.P. v. Grencom Associates, 63 Conn.App. 832 (2001) (right of redemption affected by sale approval)
- Gault v. Bacon, 142 Conn. 200 (1955) (supplemental judgment governs rights to sale proceeds)
- City National Bank v. Stoeckel, 103 Conn. 732 (1926) (principles governing foreclosure and priority)
- Reynolds v. Ramos, 188 Conn. 316 (1982) (court's broad equitable powers in foreclosure)
- Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 285 Conn. 462 (2008) (Curcio two-prong test for interlocutory appealability)
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., 279 Conn. 220 (2006) (limitations on appeals when rights can be vindicated later)